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

[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?

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.