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

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'.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalmeow

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalmeow

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osok-308

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osok-308

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.

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.