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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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?
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 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.
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?
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?
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?
Check again. There is a federal law against it too. A federal law that is a gross misuse of the commerce clause.
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 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.
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.
The state can do anything they want on their land, I just want them to leave people alone while they are on their own land.
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.
So your position is really not about drugs per se, but really that everyone should follow the law regardless of how inane/immoral it is? Correct me if I misinterpreted it.
Do you think this guy was in his buddy's basement getting high when the swat team stormed in, or was he doing something he shouldn't have been doing in a place he shouldn't have been doing it?
Rammstein said:
So your position is really not about drugs per se, but really that everyone should follow the law regardless of how inane/immoral it is? Correct me if I misinterpreted it.
Not necessarily. I was using this as an example of a law that restricts ones freedom as that was the argument being used against me in an earlier post.
Alcohol is a drug. It's legal. THC is a drug. It's illegal.
Why? While my rights stop an inch from your nose, if your nose isn't in my house, how am I affecting your rights?
The 'War on Drugs' has been about as effective as prohibition, and has done more to erode our civil liberties than anything else... including the oft-maligned Patriot Act.
I don't smoke marijuana, have no desire to smoke marijuana, and think think the abuse of any drug is incredibly stupid. However, as a firm believer in the freedom of the individual, I don't care if person sits in their home and gets high from marijuana or alcohol. If said individual chooses to drive high, then we have a problem.
Wsweeks, You're saying that it's up to the states to choose whether or not to legalize certain drugs. Let's say I agree...
California, Oregon, New Mexico, and others have passed laws legalizing the use of marijuana for some folks. The Imperial Federal Government has said that it will still prosecute these folks.
My support of freedom doesn't stop at the Second Amendment, or even the Bill of Rights.
As an aside, if I was forced to choose between sitting in a room with an alcoholic or a pothead who was holding a loaded gun... I'll take the smoker.
The 'War on Drugs' has been about as effective as prohibition, and has done more to erode our civil liberties than anything else... including the oft-maligned Patriot Act.
It's gotten us an unchanged overall rate of drug use, a gutted 4th amendment, and the highest prison population in the world (both absolute numbers and per capita).
The 'War on Drugs' has been about as effective as prohibition, and has done more to erode our civil liberties than anything else... including the oft-maligned Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act came as a result of 9/11 and the road blocks the Feds found while investigating the money trail.
M249 said:
California, Oregon, New Mexico, and others have passed laws legalizing the use of marijuana for some folks. The Imperial Federal Government has said that it will still prosecute these folks.
What's wrong with the prison population being so high? There was a quote from Slick Willy back in the 90's saying something to the effect that "prison population climbs but crime is down." Shouldn't it be that the prison population climbs AND crime is down?
The problem with our justice system the way I see it is the judiciary. Repeat offenders are a huge problem, so why are they back out on the street?
Are there any stats comparing crime from alcohol vs. drugs vs. tobacco? When was the last time someone mugged someone at gunpoint so he could get enough for a pack of smokes? These people are doing this to get their next fix of something harder than tobacco and alcohol in most cases.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing
1.7M posts
10.3K members
Since 2005
A forum community dedicated to Georgia firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!