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

[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.