If you support the second amendment, you must oppose drug prohibition

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I was against the bank and auto bailouts too.

But this does not take away from my point that something that is essentially a personal thing: your desire to do recreational drugs, has far less implications for the liberty of this country and its population as a whole than whether or not we recognize that every individual is likewise expected to be responsible at at least in part for the personal safeguarding of his or her personal liberties (like recreational drug use).

Again, we go back to the analogy of the wolf and the dog. The dog often has a grand illusion of freedom, but everything your dog has comes direct from your hand and you mostly expect your dog to exist at your beck and call. The wolf lives a leaner life, but it is at no one's beck and call. At the same time, everything the dog has provided to it by it's master that may seem to make its life so enviable is the sole responsibility of the wolf to provide to itself.

The true libertarian is the wolf.

I definitely see your point. I'm not sure that I would consider myself a true libertarian. I'm not much for purist philosophies. I think there's room in the tent for many approaches. To clarify: I'm not saying the two things are of equal importance pragmatically speaking. I am not trying to suggest that you should take up the anti-prohibition torch with the same gusto that you might defend your right to keep and bear. But I am saying that I think it's unreasonable to support the right to keep and bear while also supporting state-enforced prohibition.

a reply to: crazyewok

I totally agree, but you have uptight or insideous politicians that think we will all turn into spaced-out junkies if drugs are legal.

Fear of the Hippie.

a reply to: blueman12

Yep. We think for ourselves. Always have. We were raised that way, back in the 60s & 70s. Now our kids are voting-aged adults - some millennials (others older and already in established careers).

What the prohibitionists (and government?) really don't like is that we actually.........well, we THINK. They hate that. They hate it! They especially hate how cannabis elevates creativity, questioning, deep-thoughts, etc. Cannabis encourages us to be creative; to recognize patterns in things; to think outside the box. To solve problems...to be enthustiastic about things. To figure things out. ("Profound revelations", we used to call it. Back in the 70s. Now we call it "what if" and "Aha!" moments.)



LOL!! Well, we can't have that!! That's why they hate it.

Puritanism:
the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. H L Mencken

Happy, and thinking. Relieved of stress and pain and temporarily able to reach our higher selves....

a reply to: ketsuko

Can I just say, whatever political and/or philosophical differences we might have, that your avatar is one of my all-time favorites? Truly from no matter where you sit, this election season's politics do feel like the Kobayashi Maru.

i dont think krocodil should be legal any more than drinking uranium. We believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing in those three beliefs matches the description of krocodil.

That drug that strips people of their own will and makes them hypnotic zombies? Yeah, that's got to be banned too, because it strips liberty and pursuit of happiness.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

If I was elected president I would have an immediate Executive order hayday.

1. Make all drugs legal.
2. Remove all gun restrictions.
3.Disband the majority of the alphabet agencies, starting with DHS,TSA,FBI,DEA and IRS
4. Remove income tax and replace it with a tariff system.
5. Remove money from politics. No super PACS, no lobbying.
6. New legislation has to be no longer than 1 page long, written in plain English. Proposed legislation must be posted online immediately and given 90 days for people/politicians to review.
7. Institute 2 year term limits for all politicians.
8. Immediately roll out prosecution for all sitting politicians that have engaged in illegal behavior.
9. Remove the death penalty.
10. Release all criminals from jail/prison that were convicted of victim-less crimes.
11. Create a think-tank of a large group of uncorrupted leaders in the world, remove all current legislation and start from scratch, all new legislation will be bare bones and only the necessary laws required to protect the rights of the people.
12. Enact strict legislation with strict penalties for anyone trying to bribe a politician.
13. Pull out of all current military conflicts and shut down the majority of the military bases in the world.
14. Figure out a way to get rid of nukes.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Why must I believe both? Guns are a tool, whereas drugs are addictive substances that destroy lives and families. The 2nd Amendment was given to us as a check and balance to government. Drugs if not prescribed by a doctor and under his or her care are extraordinarily destructive to the person abusing them, and society as a whole.

originally posted by: skynet2015
i dont think krocodil should be legal any more than drinking uranium. We believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing in those three beliefs matches the description of krocodil.

That drug that strips people of their own will and makes them hypnotic zombies? Yeah, that's got to be banned too, because it strips liberty and pursuit of happiness.

If someone wants to drink uranium they should be free to do so.

What does locking them away and giving them a criminal record acomplish?

Those that sell on the other hand should be punnished.

I have lost some very good friends to addiction, and my brother is currently going off to a year long isolation rehab to deal with his addiction.
I understand the concept of this.
I also understand that drugs is a national threat...so no...its not some freedom to do as we choose when heavy and hard drugs incapacitate a person so bad that death or prison is the only possible outcome.

on soft drugs, mary and the like..sure. 100% for legalization. but class A stuff is really bad stuff. it will change your entire personality and destroy you unlike anything else

a reply to: SaturnFX

Where do you draw the line between "hard" and "soft" drugs?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: SaturnFX

Where do you draw the line between "hard" and "soft" drugs?

There are classifications for such things.
heroin / opiates in general fall directly in the heavy side
same with meth

originally posted by: SaturnFX
I have lost some very good friends to addiction, and my brother is currently going off to a year long isolation rehab to deal with his addiction.
I understand the concept of this.
I also understand that drugs is a national threat...so no...its not some freedom to do as we choose when heavy and hard drugs incapacitate a person so bad that death or prison is the only possible outcome.

on soft drugs, mary and the like..sure. 100% for legalization. but class A stuff is really bad stuff. it will change your entire personality and destroy you unlike anything else

Yes hard drugs are a problem.

How does throwing addicts in jail help?

It been shown to be one of the WORST ways to deal with addiction.

Most addicts dont start by wakeing up suddenly one day and start shooting heroine.
Most have deep underlying issues like depression,PTSD ect

Throwing them in jail with REAL criminals only makes that worse, it reinforces the idea they are scum and they learn actual real criminal behaviour while in prison.

Then when they get out they stuck with a criminal record that bars them from all but the most menial and low paid jobs.

With money trouble and such low selfesteem with little future ahead of them you have now created the perfect recipe for them to carry on doing hard drugs.


Drug addiction need to be treated outside the criminal justice system.

Portugal trying that route with very good succes.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: SaturnFX
I have lost some very good friends to addiction, and my brother is currently going off to a year long isolation rehab to deal with his addiction.
I understand the concept of this.
I also understand that drugs is a national threat...so no...its not some freedom to do as we choose when heavy and hard drugs incapacitate a person so bad that death or prison is the only possible outcome.

on soft drugs, mary and the like..sure. 100% for legalization. but class A stuff is really bad stuff. it will change your entire personality and destroy you unlike anything else

Yes hard drugs are a problem.

How does throwing addicts in jail help?

I certainly didn't say that.
Addiction to class A drugs should be treated as a severe self harm mental and physical disease..a year + on a farm reaquiring themselves I am in full favor of (of course not all cases would require a year, some a lot less, some more, would have to be considered after observation, circumstances, etc).

No, incarceration is not the answer. all prison is, is criminal college. I disagree with prison on most non-violent crimes tbh. It rarely helps anyone and typically just makes a bad situation much worse

The facts are simple 99+ % of legal firearm owners don't kill people for their entire life. The ones who do take life have always been mentally defective in some way and most were treated by a doctor. Or they were following some doctrine or they were cops. I discount military as it seems no one has a problem with the military. People don't seem to have a problem with the notion of pre-crime were people fitting some specific profile are arrested because they are possibly going to commit a crime but if you speak of pre-defense which is what the second amendment provides people get all kinds of scared, go figure. In today's world you are a lot more likely to get shot by a cop then a legal gun owner.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I can agree to a point, but there has to be a line in the sand somewhere. I don't mind people having guns, I am VERY pro 2A, I do mind people wacked out on god knows what operating cars, being armed, or in general being in public.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Why must I believe both? Guns are a tool, whereas drugs are addictive substances that destroy lives and families. The 2nd Amendment was given to us as a check and balance to government. Drugs if not prescribed by a doctor and under his or her care are extraordinarily destructive to the person abusing them, and society as a whole.

1) "The poison is in the dose" - everything is a bad thing when misused or used to the wrong degree. Guns included. Guns especially. If you think someone fighting off a Cocaine addiction is more a liability to the people around them than the insane nut who recently strolled into a Planned Parenthood in Colorado with the intent to do murder with his 2A-endowed firearms, your calculus needs some work.

2) Why do you think you need the right to be able to kill anyone at a moment's notice from a comfortable distance to protect against the tyranny of government, but have no problem assuming that those drugs classified by the US government as worthy of prosecution were done so judiciously and for all the right reasons? Those positions seem rather incongruous. If you can trust your benevolent overlords to compel you with force of violence not to consume a substance, why do you need guns to protect yourself from such wise rulers?

3) I would love to see your citations for this. Are you at all aware of decriminalization efforts and progress in European democracies?

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I can agree to a point, but there has to be a line in the sand somewhere. I don't mind people having guns, I am VERY pro 2A, I do mind people wacked out on god knows what operating cars, being armed, or in general being in public.

I can't recall the last time I heard someone seriously saying we should return to alcohol prohibition because someone got drunk and did something stupid and irresponsible with a gun.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

You seem to have missed the point in my reply, you are free to get high as balls on whatever you want, in your own home. My 2A means if your stoned to the bone ass wanders over to me and get weird, your stoned to the bone ass gets shot for creeping me the hell out. Let that settle in for a moment. (By the way, the sober dude will most likely walk on shooting the dude high as hell yay blood tests)

a reply to: SaturnFX

Any idea where those classifications might be found? Are you referring to Schedule I or II or III?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: SaturnFX

Any idea where those classifications might be found? Are you referring to Schedule I or II or III?

Class
although tbh, I disagree with some of these classifications. putting schrooms on the same level as heroin is absurd.

I have been out of that culture for decades though, so they might have changed it to whatever the schedule is..haven't checked..but really we all know what is a hard and soft drug overall. hard drugs (heroin, meth) are in my opinion very much a national security issue due to the intense addiction, complete debilitating effectiveness, and overall psychotic changes in attitude when taking it.
The argument is "legalize drugs..only idiots need to be told not to take heroin".
the problem...nearly 50% of any population = idiots...good way to destroy a nation would be to legalize the hard stuff