How can you be pro-gun, but anti-drug?

[generalmeow]

We're probably all pro-gun here, and I going to take a leap and say that we all know guns can be dangerous. We could potentially use them to hurt ourselves, or hurt others, but we still want others to be able to own guns. It's their responsibility to be safe with them. If they hurt themselves or someone else, they must face the consequences. We don't need or want the government to ban guns to protect us, or others, from our guns.

So how is this different than drugs? If you want to do drugs, that's your choice and your responsibility. You can hurt yourself, or you can hurt others. So what? You can do the same thing with a gun. You can do the same thing with gasoline. You can do the same thing with anti-freeze, a screwdriver, or a hammer. Or alcohol.

A kid can get his hands on drugs and ruin his life, or he can get his hands on a gun and ruin his life. You teach them to not pick up the gun, and you trust them to do so, why can't you teach them to not pick up the drugs, and trust them to do so?

If anybody is pro-gun and anti-drug (which I assume is a lot of you), I'd be interested in hearing how you reconcile the two stances.

For the record, I never do drugs. But I'm in favor of every drug being legal, for the simple reason that I don't think the government should tell us what to do if we're not hurting anyone. If we hurt someone, then the government steps in.

[Roger Ronas]

Very well stated and my beliefs also.
There is a website you may enjoy. It is Law Enforcement against prohibition. It is made up of Judges, police officers, attorneys and the like.
WWW.LEAP.cc

Roger

[Fentonite]

-There is no constitutional amendment that specifically guarantees the right to keep and ingest drugs.
-Drug use will not protect my family, nor prevent government tyranny.

Having said that, I am typically Libertarian in my views, and believe the War on Drugs is a waste of resources and is a losing proposition. But drugs and guns are two different arguments, and are not analogous in my view.

Pretty good book by Sheriff Bill Masters, called Drug War Addiction.

[generalmeow]

-There is no constitutional amendment that specifically guarantees the right to keep and ingest drugs.
-Drug use will not protect my family, nor prevent government tyranny.

Having said that, I am typically Libertarian in my views, and believe the War on Drugs is a waste of resources and is a losing proposition. But drugs and guns are two different arguments, and are not analogous in my view.

The purpose of the constitution isn't to tell us what we can do. We can do anything.

Automobile use will not protect your family, nor prevent government tyranny. But you can still use your car, and you can hurt yourself and others with it. I trust you to do what's right with your car.

[Fentonite]

The purpose of the constitution isn't to tell us what we can do. We can do anything.

Automobile use will not protect your family, nor prevent government tyranny. But you can still use your car, and you can hurt yourself and others with it. I trust you to do what's right with your car.

You missed my point. Or more likely, I did a poor job trying to make it. I agree that the drug war is stupid, but I just can't get as passionate about drug rights as gun rights.

[generalmeow]

You missed my point. Or more likely, I did a poor job trying to make it. I agree that the drug war is stupid, but I just can't get as passionate about drug rights as gun rights.

I'm not really passionate about drug rights either. I was just thinking how there really isn't a difference between the reasons you're pro-gun, and the reasons you're pro- legalizing drugs. They're completely different things, but they both have the same exact arguments.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

If anybody is pro-gun and anti-drug (which I assume is a lot of you), I'd be interested in hearing how you reconcile the two stances.


I'm not THAT anti-drug, but...
I'd be interested in how you make such an analogy when only one can cause serious dependence and addiction. Only one can take control of you causing a "responsible person" to do very irresponsible things. One actually alters who you are. It isn't guns.
There are drugs that, simply put, no one but trained professionals can use responsibly. What firearm or beverage is that true of? There are some, and you can't have them (easily).

And where is the line between drug and poison? As a pharmacist, I assure you it is quite blurred. Should ricin and anthrax just be readily available? Use them if you want until you hurt someone else? Oh, but oops, I put all mine in the city water supply. Should weapons-grade uranium be available and unregulated? (NO, of course not, that's ridiculous!) OK, how about foxglove? Botox? Atropine? Hemlock? Warfarin?


This is [edit: one of many of] my problem with libertarianism in the extreme - their position on licensing and regulating. This whole AMA / FDA / CSA is a crock thing.
Are you kidding me? We do over-regulate. The answer isn't a complete absence of it. $0.02

[Zundfolge]

I could care less about drug legalization.

On the one hand I don't think making these drugs illegal does any good (and in come cases does make things worse) but I don't think that if we don't legalize everything its some sign that America has become some awful, oppressive, totalitarian police state.

So could care less whether these drugs are legal or illegal.

All I really care about is if they are going to remain illegal that the police are tightly constrained by the Constitution when it comes to enforcing these laws.

No-knock raids, asset forfeiture laws, roadblocks and checkpoints ... these things have no place in American law enforcement, I don't care how bad the drugs are.

If legalizing the drugs ends the police state BS, fine legalize ... if you can put the police back under the Constitution without legalizing, fine don't legalize.

[generalmeow]

I'm not THAT anti-drug, but...
I'd be interested in how you make such an analogy when only one can cause serious dependence and addiction. Only one can take control of you causing a "responsible person" to do very irresponsible things. One actually alters who you are. It isn't guns.
There are drugs that, simply put, no one but trained professionals can use responsibly. What firearm or beverage is that true of? There are some, and you can't have them (easily).

And where is the line between drug and poison? As a pharmacist, I assure you it is quite blurred. Should ricin and anthrax just be readily available? Use them if you want until you hurt someone else? Oh, but oops, I put all mine in the city water supply. Should weapons-grade uranium be available and unregulated? (NO, of course not, that's ridiculous!) OK, how about foxglove? Botox? Atropine? Hemlock? Warfarin?


This is [edit: one of many of] my problem with libertarianism in the extreme - their position on licensing and regulating. This whole AMA / FDA / CSA is a crock thing.
Are you kidding me? We do over-regulate. The answer isn't a complete absence of it. $0.02

I'll hopefully answer many of these questions by saying that if I wanted to, I could inject gasoline into my arm. I could inject motor oil. Anti-freeze. Dish soap. Why ban drugs, when I could hurt myself by using virtually anything? You could do more damage with a single match than an ounce of heroin.

Ricin, anthrax, and uranium aren't drugs. I concede that I should not be able to own them. There is a bar above which things are too dangerous for average people to own. But the bar is set way too low right now. And whatever the height of the bar, illicit drugs should be underneath it.

[jhood001]

I'm not THAT anti-drug, but...
I'd be interested in how you make such an analogy when only one can cause serious dependence and addiction.

I think there is a strong case around here for BOTH being capable of causing dependence and addiction!

[Zundfolge]

Actually this is one of the biggest of the big dumb arguments that Libertarians bring up that I believe does more harm than good to the cause of returning America to a limited constitutional republic.

There are a THOUSAND things we need to correct, a thousand bits of progressivism that have infected this country in the last century, a thousand programs and pogroms instituted by the left to reduce our liberty, diminish our Constitution and dismantle market capitalism.

But THIS is the hill you wanna die on?
THIS is what you want to strip down to the waist and wrestle in the mud about?
THIS is the litmus test you're going to use to make sure you can never align with conservatives to defeat the left?

[lowbeyond]

Who owns your body? Some think you do. Others think the State does.

Many think its OK to go buy a keg of beer for a fun Saturday afternoon. But god forbid if you ingest a drug that they don't approve of.. You better not be clenching your buttocks IYKWIM

Drugs are bad m'kay.. except the ones I personally do, those are great and should be 110% legal.

Why is that? Blatant hypocrisy.

[generalmeow]

I think there is a strong case around here for BOTH being capable of causing dependence and addiction!

No kidding.

[generalmeow]

Actually this is one of the biggest of the big dumb arguments that Libertarians bring up that I believe does more harm than good to the cause of returning America to a limited constitutional republic.

There are a THOUSAND things we need to correct, a thousand bits of progressivism that have infected this country in the last century, a thousand programs and pogroms instituted by the left to reduce our liberty, diminish our Constitution and dismantle market capitalism.

But THIS is the hill you wanna die on?
THIS is what you want to strip down to the waist and wrestle in the mud about?
THIS is the litmus test you're going to use to make sure you can never align with conservatives to defeat the left?

Are you talking to me?

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

I'll hopefully answer many of these questions by saying that if I wanted to, I could inject gasoline into my arm. I could inject motor oil. Anti-freeze. Dish soap. Why ban drugs, when I could hurt myself by using virtually anything? You could do more damage with a single match than an ounce of heroin.

Ricin, anthrax, and uranium aren't drugs. I concede that I should not be able to own them. There is a bar above which things are too dangerous for average people to own. But the bar is set way too low right now. And whatever the height of the bar, illicit drugs should be underneath it.


Right, but my point is you set a single bar on a very blurred item. You addressed the extremes which I used specifically for that example, but didn't address any of the blurred drugs. Incidentally, uranium is, in fact, used medically.

The fact is, you can't have any weapon or even any firearm you want. Even though it may be extremely useful. Society has created tiers or protection and guardrails against that.
I'm not so sure why you think the schedules we have created for drugs is so much different and so much more unfair. You can argue that there are things that haven't been scheduled correctly or fairly, and there would be folks making the same analogy about various firearm related things, perhaps magazine capacity, perhaps rate of fire, perhaps sound attenuation.

Again, the answer isn't to just remove all guardrails and trust in people. $0.02 You got your pot. You fought for it (individually) and got it. That is appropriate. Just like we'll fight for magazine capacity. What drug do you want now? But we don't just throw out all regulations, especially on drugs.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

I think there is a strong case around here for BOTH being capable of causing dependence and addiction!

Fair enough in jest, but not in seriousness.

[Zundfolge]

Are you talking to me?

I don't know, am I? :p

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the principals of drug laws here, I just think there's a lot of more important things we should be expending so much energy and political capital on, and I believe that now is the time where libertarians and conservatives need to set aside our handful of differences and defeat the Goddamn Marxist hoard that is a hairs breadth from extinguishing ALL liberty from the face of the earth instead of standing here yelling "pothead" and "square" at each other.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Actually this is one of the biggest of the big dumb arguments that Libertarians bring up that I believe does more harm than good to the cause of returning America to a limited constitutional republic.

There are a THOUSAND things we need to correct, a thousand bits of progressivism that have infected this country in the last century, a thousand programs and pogroms instituted by the left to reduce our liberty, diminish our Constitution and dismantle market capitalism.

But THIS is the hill you wanna die on?
THIS is what you want to strip down to the waist and wrestle in the mud about?
THIS is the litmus test you're going to use to make sure you can never align with conservatives to defeat the left?


I could not agree more, and it is why I called the libertarians childish yesterday.
We have this insane debt, obamacare, scandal after scandal, crushing entitlements…..and they want to talk about how license plates are unconstitutional. That we should be able to have any drug we ever wanted. That we should never get involved in foreign affairs.

[generalmeow]

Right, but my point is you set a single bar on a very blurred item. You addressed the extremes which I used specifically for that example, but didn't address any of the blurred drugs. Incidentally, uranium is, in fact, used medically.

The fact is, you can't have any weapon or even any firearm you want. Even though it may be extremely useful. Society has created tiers or protection and guardrails against that.
I'm not so sure why you think the schedules we have created for drugs is so much different and so much more unfair. You can argue that there are things that haven't been scheduled correctly or fairly, and there would be folks making the same analogy about various firearm related things, perhaps magazine capacity, perhaps rate of fire, perhaps sound attenuation.

Again, the answer isn't to just remove all guardrails and trust in people. $0.02 You got your pot. You fought for it (individually) and got it. That is appropriate. Just like we'll fight for magazine capacity. What drug do you want now? But we don't just throw out all regulations, especially on drugs.

But you don't want them to ban guns, when with a single gun you could hurt far more people than any amount of illicit drug. That's my point. If I've got a pound of heroin, how am I going to hurt anyone with it? Throw it up in the air? Spray it from an airplane? Throw the bag in your eye? I could give it to you. Yeah, I could give you a gun too.

I trust you with your gun. I trust you with your drugs. That's all I'm saying. If you want to hurt someone with either one, you will pay the price.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

But you don't want them to ban guns, when with a single gun you could hurt far more people than any amount of illicit drug. That's my point. If I've got a pound of heroin, how am I going to hurt anyone with it? Throw it up in the air? Spray it from an airplane? Throw the bag in your eye? I could give it to you. Yeah, I could give you a gun too.

I trust you with your gun. I trust you with your drugs. That's all I'm saying. If you want to hurt someone with either one, you will pay the price.

It may be your point, I assure you it is incorrect.
Anyone who has taken even the most basic pharmacology could come up with ways to harm far more people than I could with my single gun. It isn't heroin. $0.02
RN level education could figure this out with prescription level drugs and not even need to get into illicit ones.

[rondog]

Pro-gun people typically don't steal drugs and other property from pro-drug people, other people, businesses, etc., so that they can buy more guns and ammo.

Just sayin'.....

[generalmeow]

It may be your point, I assure you it is incorrect.
Anyone who has taken even the most basic pharmacology could come up with ways to harm far more people than I could with my single gun. It isn't heroin. $0.02
RN level education could figure this out with prescription level drugs and not even need to get into illicit ones.

Well, I have heard about people walking into a place and killing 30 people with a gun. I haven't heard about someone walking into a place and killing 30 people with a bag of crack. Sooo...how am I incorrect?

Sorry, I didn't take a pharmacology class. Haven't heard of any of them killing 30 people either.

As a RN, you could walk from bed to bed and hit everyone with a hammer. Or put anti-freeze in their IV's. What do drugs have to do with them being able to kill you?

Someone could put banned drugs in the water supply, or they could put rat poison. How did banning the drugs help protect you?

[hatidua]

Fear not, the DEA would never ever allow drugs to be legalized - it'd put them out of a job. They'll put for as many studies as necessary to keep drugs illegal, if for no other reason than to protect their annual operating budget.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Well, I have heard about people walking into a place and killing 30 people with a gun. I haven't heard about someone walking into a place and killing 30 people with a bag of crack. Sooo...how am I incorrect?

Sorry, I didn't take a pharmacology class. Haven't heard of any of them killing 30 people either.

Just because you may be ignorant of something doesn't make your point any better. Google Jonestown. Google "mass poisonings."



As a RN, you could walk from bed to bed and hit everyone with a hammer. Or put anti-freeze in their IV's. What do drugs have to do with them being able to kill you?

Someone could put banned drugs in the water supply, or they could put rat poison. How did banning the drugs help protect you?

Do you REALLY think a nurse could do that for very long? With the double check systems in place, do you really think you could give someone an anti-freeze IV in most hospitals?

You are correct, and it is my point - you could harm far more people with poisons (or drugs) than a single person could with a gun. For whatever reason, you've latched on to 30 and it isn't a high threshold. $0.02

But here is the "logic" you are presenting us with:
It is far more efficient to kill with diesel fuel and fertilizer. Therefore, give us every drug we've ever wanted. Because we can have guns too.
lolwut?

[osok-308]

We're probably all pro-gun here, and I going to take a leap and say that we all know guns can be dangerous. We could potentially use them to hurt ourselves, or hurt others, but we still want others to be able to own guns. It's their responsibility to be safe with them. If they hurt themselves or someone else, they must face the consequences. We don't need or want the government to ban guns to protect us, or others, from our guns.

So how is this different than drugs? If you want to do drugs, that's your choice and your responsibility. You can hurt yourself, or you can hurt others. So what? You can do the same thing with a gun. You can do the same thing with gasoline. You can do the same thing with anti-freeze, a screwdriver, or a hammer. Or alcohol.

A kid can get his hands on drugs and ruin his life, or he can get his hands on a gun and ruin his life. You teach them to not pick up the gun, and you trust them to do so, why can't you teach them to not pick up the drugs, and trust them to do so?

If anybody is pro-gun and anti-drug (which I assume is a lot of you), I'd be interested in hearing how you reconcile the two stances.

For the record, I never do drugs. But I'm in favor of every drug being legal, for the simple reason that I don't think the government should tell us what to do if we're not hurting anyone. If we hurt someone, then the government steps in.

I would first of all tell you that I am a libertarian and believe that the government has no place telling people what they can or cannot do. I am against drugs (not for the war on drugs).

Your argument about guns misses a few key points, YES guns can cause damage, but you are not mentioning the GOOD that guns are capable of. I've never heard of a woman stopping a rape because she gave the offender some heroine instead, there are no cases of fathers bonding with their sons over an afternoon smoking meth, and freedom has never been won at the business end of a crack pipe. Guns have good uses. There is no responsible way to use meth, heroine, or crack (pot is probably a different story).

When I have children I will teach them that drugs will not get them where they want to be, so legal or not, I hope that my children will abstain from those things. However people who get high on meth have gotten violent and committed many a crime. The reason I think these hard drugs should be illegal is because of the possible overarching effect it can have on others.


You are also looking at HOW people choose to kill others, let's not forget that murder is also illegal.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

There is no responsible way to use meth, heroine, or crack (pot is probably a different story).


The United Kingdom uses heroin medically. Some drugs we use for ADHD or narcolepsy are pretty close cousins to meth.
The difference, in these cases, between good and bad is some regulation and a lot of education and training. I'm not at all for doing away with the CSA and our drug schedules. $0.02 I am all for occasionally reviewing things on a case-by-case basis for appropriateness. This is what we do.



If generalmeow (or anyone) seems to think heroin is such a public welfare bonanza, I would strongly urge them to volunteer in a methadone clinic for a week or two and see how these things affect lives.

[generalmeow]

Just because you may be ignorant of something doesn't make your point any better. Google Jonestown. Google "mass poisonings."

I'm talking about illegal drugs. You're talking about poison. You've got poison in your house right now.


Do you REALLY think a nurse could do that for very long? With the double check systems in place, do you really think you could give someone an anti-freeze IV in most hospitals?

You said a RN could think of a way to kill people, not me. What does how long they could get away with it have to do with anything? How long could you get away with killing people with a gun?


You are correct, and it is my point - you could harm far more people with poisons (or drugs) than a single person could with a gun. For whatever reason, you've latched on to 30 and it isn't a high threshold. $0.02

Virginia Tech = 32. Poisons aren't illicit drugs. Your example was Jonestown. Give me an example of more than 32 people being killed with illicit drugs in a single instance.


But here is the "logic" you are presenting us with:
It is far more efficient to kill with diesel fuel and fertilizer. Therefore, give us every drug we've ever wanted. Because we can have guns too.
lolwut?

I don't know where you're getting this. I'm saying if you're in favor of banning something because it's dangerous, then why not ban the things that are more dangerous first? What sense does it make to ban something that is less dangerous than things that are readily available. If some nutjob wants to kill a bunch of people, they're not going to use crack, heroin, cocaine, morphine, or whatever.

[generalmeow]

If generalmeow (or anyone) seems to think heroin is such a public welfare bonanza, I would strongly urge them to volunteer in a methadone clinic for a week or two and see how these things affect lives.

Where did I say legalizing drugs would be good for everyone, or provide any benefit to society? I believe in natural selection. If you are the type of person that would kill yourself with drugs, I want you to kill yourself with drugs. Good riddance.

[Zundfolge]

There is no responsible way to use meth, heroine, or crack (pot is probably a different story).

Actually Meth is a prescription drug (and was before it became a street drug), we use heroine's cousin morphine all the time for medicine and same thing goes for cocaine (which is what crack is made from).

Keep in mind, however, that all these responsible uses for these drugs require a prescription and strict supervision of the manufacture, sale and use, so its not like you can buy them all at Walgreen's cash and carry.

[generalmeow]

Shit, if you're even the type of person who would try heroin, or crack, I want you to overdose. But i want you to be able to make that decision.

Free market, gentlemen. If it kills you, maybe you won't buy it.

[KLR650]

Prohibition as a practice destroys lives. People being incarcerated for years of their lives for what? the persuit of happiness? Let's take the proverbial tweaker who goes on a criminal rampage, let's punish the rampage. the prohibition argument is akin to punishing guns for murder, the "if we take away the guns, we take away the tool of murder" arguments. let people who want drugs have them in the open, before a criminal black market emerges and we see gang crime run rampant. oh wait.

what if something you truly enjoyed (people clearly enjoy drugs, as they are willing to risk punishment), but didn't find unethical were declared a felony tomorrow. would you stop, would you really? what about 30 round mags?

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

I'm talking about illegal drugs. You're talking about poison. You've got poison in your house right now.

You said a RN could think of a way to kill people, not me. What does how long they could get away with it have to do with anything? How long could you get away with killing people with a gun?

Virginia Tech = 32. Poisons aren't illicit drugs. Your example was Jonestown. Give me an example of more than 32 people being killed with illicit drugs in a single instance.

I don't know where you're getting this. I'm saying if you're in favor of banning something because it's dangerous, then why not ban the things that are more dangerous first? What sense does it make to ban something that is less dangerous than things that are readily available. If some nutjob wants to kill a bunch of people, they're not going to use crack, heroin, cocaine, morphine, or whatever.

The point you keep conveniently avoiding is that the line between poison and drug is all in how it is used and unbelievably blurred.
You may be saying things about dangerous substances now and going off on bizarre tangents, but what you asked in the OP was how one might reconcile being pro-gun and anti-drug.

You asked, several have answered. You didn't like the answer and have put forth all sorts of convoluted logic, which is fine.
We're unlikely to convince you, and I assure you that all of the bizarre logic you have put forth is unlikely to convince anyone that "drugs are OK because there are other more available and damaging ways to kill people."

[generalmeow]

The point you keep conveniently avoiding is that the line between poison and drug is all in how it is used and unbelievably blurred.
You may be saying things about dangerous substances now and going off on bizarre tangents, but what you asked in the OP was how one might reconcile being pro-gun and anti-drug.

You asked, several have answered. You didn't like the answer and have put forth all sorts of convoluted logic, which is fine.
We're unlikely to convince you, and I assure you that all of the bizarre logic you have put forth is unlikely to convince anyone that "drugs are OK because there are other more available and damaging ways to kill people."

You haven't answered any of my questions, because they are inconvenient to your point of view, so I claim victory.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Shit, if you're even the type of person who would try heroin, or crack, I want you to overdose. But i want you to be able to make that decision.

Free market, gentlemen. If it kills you, maybe you won't buy it.

Not even close. The free market depends upon perfect or near perfect information.
Do you really think that is what we have here?

BTW, how do Free Market disciples, you Friedmans and Sowells and so forth suggest dealing with externalities? ;)

Puh-leese.

[Zundfolge]

So for those of you that are adamantly in support of recreational drug legalization, do you also want to end all laws regarding prescription drugs?

[generalmeow]

Not even close. The free market depends upon perfect or near perfect information.
Do you really think that is what we have here?

BTW, how do Free Market disciples, you Friedmans and Sowells and so forth suggest dealing with externalities? ;)

Puh-leese.

I didn't say we have a free market. I meant if we had a free market, you would have the choice. Not the government.

[generalmeow]

So for those of you that are adamantly in support of recreational drug legalization, do you also want to end all laws regarding prescription drugs?

Of course.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

You haven't answered any of my questions, because they are inconvenient to your point of view, so I claim victory.


Absolutely, Sport. Nicely done.


Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls: Your libertarian candidate POV. Please give up on your silly Republican party.

[generalmeow]

Absolutely, Sport. Nicely done.


Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls: Your libertarian candidate POV. Please give up on your silly Republican party.

Everyone: I give you Jeffrey Lebowski, the smartest man on the message boards. What a wonderful job he did arguing today! Better luck next time champ. You can't win 'em all.

[Bailey Guns]

The freedom to bear arms and the freedom to ingest any drug you choose are in no way analogous for various reasons that others have already pointed out. Doesn't work with cars/driving, either.

I'm really not in favor of the war on drugs but I don't have a plan to stop the flow of illicit drugs into and around the country. So, I'm not sure what the alternative to the war on drugs should be short of just stopping it (or the bulk of it).

But I'm not in favor of legalizing drugs.

Look at the social model provided by alcohol. A small percentage of people who consume alcohol do it with the intent of becoming intoxicated. Most people use it responsibly. But look at the societal ills caused by a small number (relative to the number of people in total who consume alcohol) of people who abuse alcohol. The problems are staggering. So, in my opinion, using alcohol as a model for legalizing drugs is a really bad idea and it's not a rational argument.

Now multiply that by what you'd have with legalized drug use. The whole intent of using drugs is to become intoxicated and to alter one's mental state. Not to mention the addictive power of some drugs like methamphetamines. Outside of professional supervision there is no way to responsibly use such a drug and it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to radically alter one's mental state. People who use these types of drugs cannot make rational decisions. The risk posed by people under the influence of some of these drugs to others is too great and far outweighs any benefit legalizing them might serve. That's assuming there is a benefit. I can't really think of one that couldn't be derived by some other means.

For those who say "we have a right to put anything into our bodies that doesn't hurt someone else", I say, nonsense. If you believe that you've never had to fight someone high on PCP or other strong, mind-altering drug. If people could be locked in their own little bubble to take the drugs and stay there until the high is over or until they die, fine. But we can't do that. They'll still be free to mingle among the rest of the population. Even if they hurt no one else (which is a highly dubious argument) what are we going to do? Just let the junkies lay around on the streets and die? "Oh, it's his right. He didn't hurt anyone but himself so he's free to lay in that gutter and die if that's what he wants. I'll just step over him." Yeah, right. The cost of providing care to these people will be far more than we can afford.

I voted against the marijuana amendment simply because I thought making it a part of the state constitution was a ridiculous idea, not because I really have a problem with people who want to smoke marijuana. But legalizing other, stronger drugs is just a bad idea and will serve no purpose other than to make libertarians feel better.

[Bailey Guns]

You haven't answered any of my questions, because they are inconvenient to your point of view, so I claim victory.

You're obviously high on some illicit drug. I could just as easily claim, "Yes, he has. You're just a dumbass."

[generalmeow]

You're obviously high on some illicit drug. I could just as easily claim, "Yes, he has. You're just a dumbass."

And why are you more right that I am?

[Bailey Guns]

Genetics? Education? Use of rational thought? Pick one.

What makes you more right than Lebowski?

[generalmeow]

For those who say "we have a right to put anything into our bodies that doesn't hurt someone else", I say, nonsense. If you believe that you've never had to fight someone high on PCP or other strong, mind-altering drug. If people could be locked in their own little bubble to take the drugs and stay there until the high is over or until they die, fine. But we can't do that. They'll still be free to mingle among the rest of the population.

Why can't you guys see that the exact same arguements that you're making apply to guns, which is the whole point of the OP?

[generalmeow]

Genetics? Education? Use of rational thought? Pick one.

What makes you more right than Lebowski?

Logic.

You think you have better genetics and education than me? That's pretty arrogant.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Logic.

You think you have better genetics and education than me? That's pretty arrogant.


[Roll1] If your logic were so sound, perhaps society wouldn't have, over time, scheduled more and more drugs.
All of us are arguing opinion. You think drugs and guns are perfectly analogous. Most of us don't. And that's fine.

[generalmeow]

Rules of arguing on the internet:

#1) If the person you're arguing with stops answering your questions, because doing so would damage their case, you have won the argument.
#2) If the person you're arguing with stops answering your questions, and resorts to insults, you have won the argument.
#3) If either of the above occurs, you are dealing with a liberal or closet liberal.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Rules of arguing on the internet:

#1) If the person you're arguing with stops answering your questions, because doing so would damage their case, you have won the argument.
#2) If the person you're arguing with stops answering your questions, and resorts to insults, you have won the argument.
#3) If either of the above occurs, you are dealing with a liberal or closet liberal.


Seriously, what questions do you feel you aren't getting answered?

[spqrzilla]

You haven't answered any of my questions, because they are inconvenient to your point of view, so I claim victory.
And yet ... I'm not going to recognize your claim.

You turned "How do you reconcile ..." into "Your arguments dont' convince me". Moving the goalposts is not "victory".

[generalmeow]

Seriously, what questions do you feel you aren't getting answered?

1) If I've got a pound of heroin, how am I going to hurt anyone with it? Throw it up in the air? Spray it from an airplane? Throw the bag in your eye? I could give it to you. Yeah, I could give you a gun too.
2) Well, I have heard about people walking into a place and killing 30 people with a gun. I haven't heard about someone walking into a place and killing 30 people with a bag of crack. Sooo...how am I incorrect?
3) As a RN, you could walk from bed to bed and hit everyone with a hammer. Or put anti-freeze in their IV's. What do drugs have to do with them being able to kill you?
4) Someone could put banned drugs in the water supply, or they could put rat poison. How did banning the drugs help protect you?
5) You said a RN could think of a way to kill people, not me. What does how long they could get away with it have to do with anything? How long could you get away with killing people with a gun?
6) Virginia Tech = 32. Poisons aren't illicit drugs. Your example was Jonestown. Give me an example of more than 32 people being killed with illicit drugs in a single instance.
7) Where did I say legalizing drugs would be good for everyone, or provide any benefit to society?

[Bailey Guns]

Logic.

You think you have better genetics and education than me? That's pretty arrogant.

Arrogant? You arbitrarily declare yourself the "winner" of an argument where most people disagree with your POV and I'm arrogant because I make a joke?

Not only have you not won the argument, your "Logic" answer is obviously wrong, too.

[generalmeow]

And yet ... I'm not going to recognize your claim.

You turned "How do you reconcile ..." into "Your arguments dont' convince me". Moving the goalposts is not "victory".

Mind over matter. I don't mind, and you don't matter.

[generalmeow]

Arrogant? You arbitrarily declare yourself the "winner" of an argument where most people disagree with your POV and I'm arrogant because I make a joke?

Not only have you not won the argument, your "Logic" answer is obviously wrong, too.

Please tell me which logical fallacies I have made.

[generalmeow]

Arrogant? You arbitrarily declare yourself the "winner" of an argument where most people disagree with your POV and I'm arrogant because I make a joke?

You weren't joking. I know you honestly think that, which would probably make me laugh if I saw you and talked to you in person.

[Bailey Guns]

Your comparison of gun ownership with legalizing drugs. Huge fail for various reasons already pointed out.

[generalmeow]

Your comparison of gun ownership with legalizing drugs. Huge fail for various reasons already pointed out.

This post is a huge fail, for reasons I've already pointed out. Still waiting to hear what logical fallacies I've made.