War on Drugs and Misdemeanor Marijuana and Firearms License

3740 Views 89 Replies 14 Participants Last post by Rammstein, Jul 9, 2007

Rammstein

Discussion Starter · Jul 4, 2007

SPLIT FROM ANOTHER THREAD

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.

Save

1 - 2 of 90 Posts

fallison

· #44 · Jul 5, 2007

M249 said:
I think it's a tragedy that the government can prevent a person from exercising an INALIENABLE right because they got caught with a joint.

I'll one up you on that. If the right to bear arms is INALIENABLE, than how do you justify restricting it to anyone? My view is that an inalienable right is necessarily returned to anyone that has "paid their debt". If someone cannot be trusted to exercise their rights responsibly, they have no business being part of society to begin with.
As an inalienable right, a person's right to bear arms MUST be restored to them as soon as their sentence has been served, just as their right to free speech, choice of religion, etc.

Save

fallison

· #83 · Jul 7, 2007

Malum Prohibitum said:
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."

They don't already? :shock:

Save

1 - 2 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.

Top Contributors this Month