Two words: Alcohol & Tobaccowsweeks2 said:
War on Drugs and Misdemeanor Marijuana and Firearms License
SPLIT FROM ANOTHER THREAD
It is the war on "some" drugs because alcohol is a drug that has killed thousands if not millions of people, (and I am going to assume that the OP is talking about possession of cannabis). Cannabis has an Ld50 so low that it is impossible to kill a human by ingestion or inhalation.
I agree that we all make our own choices and must live with those choices, but every human should have the right to do as they please with their body if they do not harm the life/liberty/property of another. Like guns, you don't punish the object, you punish the crime.
It's not about drugs improving anything. It is about the freedom of adults to put whatever substance they want into their body so long as they do not harm the life/liberty/property of another.wsweeks2 said:How is it the war on "some" drugs?
I don't feel sorry for anyone who gets involved with that stuff, gets a conviction, and then later realizes what they've done.
We all have choices to make, and we have to live with the result of those decisions. Those who play with fire get burned. That's life.
Other than giving us the television series Cops, what have illegal drugs done to improve our society and our culture?
It is the war on "some" drugs because alcohol is a drug that has killed thousands if not millions of people, (and I am going to assume that the OP is talking about possession of cannabis). Cannabis has an Ld50 so low that it is impossible to kill a human by ingestion or inhalation.
I agree that we all make our own choices and must live with those choices, but every human should have the right to do as they please with their body if they do not harm the life/liberty/property of another. Like guns, you don't punish the object, you punish the crime.
1 - 20 of 90 Posts
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I failed to find the amendment stating that the right of the people to keep and use syringes, crack pipes, bongs, bowls, roach clips, and rolling papers shall not be infringed.
I will fight for my gun rights until I am no longer breathing as they are guaranteed to us.
I will fight for my gun rights until I am no longer breathing as they are guaranteed to us.
You don't think you should have the final say about what you do and don't put into your body?wsweeks2 said:Maybe I'm mistaken, but I failed to find the amendment stating that the right of the people to keep and use syringes, crack pipes, bongs, bowls, roach clips, and rolling papers shall not be infringed.
I will fight for my gun rights until I am no longer breathing as they are guaranteed to us.
If I want to eat a pile of my own crap, yes I should have the right to do that. It's not going to cause the problems that crack, heroin, and other illegal drugs have. You point out alcohol and tobacco, which are excellent examples, however I am not the one who decided what is legal and what isn't.
Tobacco would be the next one on my list however in public places. In the same sense as the old saying "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose" I would say that "your right to smoke stops at my lungs."
Tobacco would be the next one on my list however in public places. In the same sense as the old saying "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose" I would say that "your right to smoke stops at my lungs."
The mistake here is to think that our constitution and it's amendments grant us any rights. Rights are things that we have that no man has a right to take away. The bill of rights are extra limitations on government power, not grants of rights to the people.wsweeks2 said:Maybe I'm mistaken, but I failed to find the amendment stating that the right of the people to keep and use syringes, crack pipes, bongs, bowls, roach clips, and rolling papers shall not be infringed.
I will fight for my gun rights until I am no longer breathing as they are guaranteed to us.
I completely agree, and I would not dare insult the framers of the Constitution and think that they left something off of the list of those rights which are to be protected.
Free speech, freedom to practice religion - or not, freedom to assemble, the right to bear arms, and all the others in the Bill of Rights as well as the other amendments are all great examples. Drugs don't seem to cross my mind as something people have an absolute right to possess, use, etc.
Free speech, freedom to practice religion - or not, freedom to assemble, the right to bear arms, and all the others in the Bill of Rights as well as the other amendments are all great examples. Drugs don't seem to cross my mind as something people have an absolute right to possess, use, etc.
I don't think of it as freedom to use drugs. I think of it as freedom to live one's life in the way they choose. It may be a stupid life choice but so are lots of things in life. I don't believe that freedom stops at the specific enumerated items in our Bill of Rights.wsweeks2 said:I completely agree, and I would not dare insult the framers of the Constitution and think that they left something off of the list of those rights which are to be protected.
Free speech, freedom to practice religion - or not, freedom to assemble, the right to bear arms, and all the others in the Bill of Rights as well as the other amendments are all great examples. Drugs don't seem to cross my mind as something people have an absolute right to possess, use, etc.
If that's the case, then I suppose you would do away with any laws that are not mala in se?
Which really causes more problems in our society, drug use itself, or the fact that the drugs people like to use are illegal?wsweeks2 said:If I want to eat a pile of my own crap, yes I should have the right to do that. It's not going to cause the problems that crack, heroin, and other illegal drugs have.
Not many people steal to support their tobacco habit.
But the problem is that you see the problem being the object and not the action, or more specifically, the person doing the action.wsweeks2 said:Maybe I'm mistaken, but I failed to find the amendment stating that the right of the people to keep and use syringes, crack pipes, bongs, bowls, roach clips, and rolling papers shall not be infringed.
I will fight for my gun rights until I am no longer breathing as they are guaranteed to us.
There are some other people who think the object and not the person is evil.
I don't see why you have to compromise on one set of freedoms. This country should be a land where there are only laws that prohibit the infringement on other's life/liberty/property.
I just don't understand why anyone would want to be a Brady when they could be a Patriot.
It's hard to draw the line sometimes. It's hard to tell where infringing on one's rights ends and that person infringing on another's rights begins. See what I'm saying?Rammstein said:But the problem is that you see the problem being the object and not the action, or more specifically, the person doing the action.wsweeks2 said:Maybe I'm mistaken, but I failed to find the amendment stating that the right of the people to keep and use syringes, crack pipes, bongs, bowls, roach clips, and rolling papers shall not be infringed.
I will fight for my gun rights until I am no longer breathing as they are guaranteed to us.
There are some other people who think the object and not the person is evil.
I don't see why you have to compromise on one set of freedoms. This country should be a land where there are only laws that prohibit the infringement on other's life/liberty/property.
I just don't understand why anyone would want to be a Brady when they could be a Patriot.
No.ptsmith24 said:See what I'm saying?Rammstein said:But the problem is that you see the problem being the object and not the action, or more specifically, the person doing the action.wsweeks2 said:Maybe I'm mistaken, but I failed to find the amendment stating that the right of the people to keep and use syringes, crack pipes, bongs, bowls, roach clips, and rolling papers shall not be infringed.
I will fight for my gun rights until I am no longer breathing as they are guaranteed to us.
There are some other people who think the object and not the person is evil.
I don't see why you have to compromise on one set of freedoms. This country should be a land where there are only laws that prohibit the infringement on other's life/liberty/property.
I just don't understand why anyone would want to be a Brady when they could be a Patriot.
You either do or you do not.
Then lets do away with speed limits and any other laws except the basic laws of humanity. The framers had laws on the books other than those that were mala in se for a reason.
I'm guessing they were like Sarah Brady as well for enacting legislation prohibiting certain acts that were not inherently evil?
I'm guessing they were like Sarah Brady as well for enacting legislation prohibiting certain acts that were not inherently evil?
The founding fathers didn't put anything in the constitution giving the federal government the power to tell me I can't grow a particular plant on my personal property for my personal use, did they?wsweeks2 said:Then lets do away with speed limits and any other laws except the basic laws of humanity. The framers had laws on the books other than those that were mala in se for a reason.
I'm guessing they were like Sarah Brady as well for enacting legislation prohibiting certain acts that were not inherently evil?
No they didn't, they wrote the 10th amendment giving the power to the states.
The states have banned your right to plant certain things on your property for your private use.
The states have banned your right to plant certain things on your property for your private use.
Check again. There is a federal law against it too. A federal law that is a gross misuse of the commerce clause.wsweeks2 said:No they didn't, they wrote the 10th amendment giving the power to the states.
The states have banned your right to plant certain things on your property for your private use.
But, we're getting away from the point. The point is that someone should not have to pay for the rest of their life for using (or just posessing) a drug.
I completely agree with this.mzmtg said:Check again. There is a federal law against it too. A federal law that is a gross misuse of the commerce clause.
I disagree with this. Right wrong or indifferent, the laws are the way they are and drugs are illegal. Unless they were planted on the person, they made a conscious choice and now they have to deal with the consequences - valid or not.mzmtg said:The point is that someone should not have to pay for the rest of their life for using (or just posessing) a drug.
Right, one should take one's medicine.wsweeks2 said:Right wrong or indifferent, the laws are the way they are and drugs are illegal. Unless they were planted on the person, they made a conscious choice and now they have to deal with the consequences - valid or not.
But...
...my point is that the consequences for this particular action are grossly out of line when one considers the actual harm done by the act.
Agreed. There are worse things one can do that still allow you to obtain a GFL, or a firearm for that matter.
I don't think anyone will disagree that this state needs a major overhaul of carry laws from top to bottom.
I don't think anyone will disagree that this state needs a major overhaul of carry laws from top to bottom.
1 - 20 of 90 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing
A forum community dedicated to Georgia firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Nemo
354 Replies
Malum Prohibitum
347 Replies
seajay
127 Replies
Recommended Communities
