Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

War on Drugs and Misdemeanor Marijuana and Firearms License

3739 Views 89 Replies 14 Participants Last post by  Rammstein
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'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.

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 - 10 of 90 Posts
mzmtg said: point is that the consequences for this particular action are grossly out of line when one considers the actual harm done by the act.
There have been bills on this before, but they do not get very far.
wsweeks2 said:
And like I said, they better articulate it. Not just I smelled smoke. Have fun convincing a jury in a civil trial that you smelled smoke in a car from someone who has never smoked or done drugs. The cop better have a roach to plant.
That is articulating it. There is already case law on that.
An officer need not have PC to run a tag. It is in plain view. I am not sure I understand this anecdote from Maryland.
Maybe this thread should be split after about the fourth post on page one and moved to Off Topic . . .

This thread is getting old . . . :sleep:
Like this? :banghead: :banghead:

No, it is not. I just noticed that the thread isn't really going anywhere. The arguments are not progressing. They are sort of just repeating themselves. I just thought I would point it out, because people often lose the broad picture of the entire thread when they are too busy caught up responding with some contradiction to each new individual post somebody else posted. Then it quickly becomes ten pages of Yes it is, No it isn't, Yes it is, No it isn't . . . and so on.
Scenarios aside, does the federal government have the Constitutional mandate to tell you what you can and cannot put into your body?

Yes or no answer will suffice.
NO. Commerce Clause does not extend so far.
But the S. Ct. disagrees with me. See Raich.

From Clarence Thomas' dissent.

"If Congress can regulate this under the commerce clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. . . . the federal government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."
Rammstein said:
Smoking a bowl and dieing years later from lung cancer is not a tangible infringement on another's life/liberty/property.
Then why do they have a claim on my income?
1 - 10 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.