Firearms & Criminality (Are "Drug Users" Criminals?)

[DontCryMrJefferson]

When they ask you if you are a "habitual user" or "addicted to" drugs (I can't remember the exact wording of the question) on a NICS form does that include alcohol? If not, isn't that just slightly hypocritical? I mean, what does the drug's legality have to do with it AT ALL? Technically, (physiologically) what's the major difference between being addicted to say, heroin (illegal) and being addicted to morphine that has been prescribed to you by a doctor? Well, from what I know there is no difference other than legality. I guess they want to know if you are a "law-breaker" but...

Where does it end? What about if/when (if they haven't already) laws become oppressive, tyrannical and, at best, unconstitutional? I mean, what better way to keep guns away from everyone than to have everyone agree that "criminals" shouldn't have them and then make everyone a potential criminal?

Although I/we may not like it I feel that our founders, (at least the most intelligent one, Thomas Jefferson ) if alive today, would be against the criminalization of illegal drugs. They had the belief that, as long as someone's actions weren't detrimental to others they had the right to act them out. I think they would say that it was OUR responsibility and not the government's job to combat any "drug problem".

Yes, I know what people will say. I know what people have said, but if you want to use the argument "the founders thought" you might as well be consistent. We can't deny the fact that many of them said the same thing about the role of government being only to protect the liberties of individuals. The only debate should be whether or not they are doing that with the War On Drugs. I feel they aren't except in extreme circumstances. IMO, someone should only be sent to jail for possession of drugs IF they committed a crime or are a legitimate and eminent threat to the liberties of other citizens.

The reason I say you can't put people in jail for drugs (ethically or constitutionally) by using the rationale, "they are a danger to society and they pose a threat to the liberties of others" is because this is not true of most of them! If we start by making that sweeping generalization then where do we stop? All depressed people are a danger to liberties? Bipolar people? ALCOHOLICS?

I say that, at the very least, if we are going to punish people for possessing drugs then alcohol should also be illegal. From my regretful but insightful former experience with some drugs and alcohol I can safely say, without any hint of doubt in my mind, that alcohol is at least one of the top three worst drugs. That is why I find it hypocritical for the president and congress to sign/pass bills banning people from possessing certain organic substances (chemically organic; you know, carbon-carbon bonds) while he/they go off and have a beer!?

Before anyone says that alcohol is any better than almost any "illegal" drug I would like to say that from my extensive medical, chemical, physical and scientific research and my personal experience, I have determined (I wasn't biased either; I didn't used to think this way but this is where the facts led me) that ethanol is the most destructive chemical in our country today, yet it is one of the least restricted. The best scenario would be to at least decriminalize drugs. The second best would be to return consistency and ban alcohol. In my opinion, those are the only things that should make sense to someone who respects the facts and our inherent liberties.

And before someone uses the argument, not all drugs are "bad for you" if used in moderation, remember that, almost anything NOT used in moderation is bad.

These debates always get heated but let me propose that we keep this civil and logical and devoid of malcontent, malice or aggression, please. Also, let us stick to the facts and avoid such fallacies as: appeals to emotion, fear or authority, slippery slopes, ad hominem, guilt by association, straw man etc...

If I have committed on of these fallacies I assure everyone that it was not purposeful and I hope you will let me know which statement you believe was fallacious. I will immediately retract the argument if we both agree that it is, in fact, a fallacy.

**In case you guys wanted to know I don't "do drugs" (legal or otherwise; at least those with CNS effects) and I only drink, on average, about once or twice every six months and I never get drunk. However, at one point I did all of these things and, on a few occasions to excess. But, most of my experience with the bad effects of some drugs and especially alcohol came from friends and acquaintances. I also used to be one of the most gung-ho anti-drug people on the face of the planet until I started reading. I read only scientific papers and studies and some opinions on both sides of the issue. I am of the opinion that any man, if he is well read on the subject and is honest to himself, will come to a similar conclusion I have.**

[kchociej]

I'm curious about your extensive medical, chemical and physical research...what sort of research have you done?

I wouldn't want to have somebody that's addicted to drugs or alcohol posessing a firearm by any means. An altered state of mind and being doesn't mix with guns.

As far as decriminalizing drugs, I agree with you. I think recently in Sweden or Netherlands they set up clinics giving heroin addicts their daily fix so they wouldn't commit other crimes to support their habits. I think it's a person's own choice what they want to do with their bodies as long as it doesn't affect others freedoms.

I think at the very least marijuana should be legalized. The "war on drugs" is a joke. I know successful people who smoke it, before I was 21 it was easier to obtain than alcohol. Also the tax money that could be made from it would be huge, just like alcohol.

BTW, I don't do drugs and drink on occasion.

[jacksonco]

My opinion for what it is worth comes from a one time user of pot and a few other drugs. I am strongly against the legalization of pot because I have seen the so called harmless effects it has on users.

Most of the people that I partied with in my younger days have amounted to nothing. They are still stuck in the past living for the high. They don't care if they have any material possesions. Their offspring suffer from an impoverished up bringing and most likely a broken home. I was fortunate enough to have met a good stable woman that kept me from ruining my life and those people around me.

To legalize pot is just another poison that disourages personal achievement and another way for the goverment to put a tax on the poor. The goverment is already collecting its fair share of taxes from alcohol and tabbaco.

Will the tax collected on pot offset the cost of law enforcement to respond to crimes from those people that have to steal to afford the drug? It can not be argued that pot is non-addictive. For what reason would a person choose to use the drug and see their chances for personal developement be wasted away and their family life crushed?

My opinion is just that and it may not be very popular. I know my brothers would not think much of it. But I look at them and see 2 failed marriges and a lack of ambition in their lives. Just my two cents worth.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by jacksonco

My opinion for what it is worth comes from a one time user of pot and a few other drugs. I am strongly against the legalization of pot because I have seen the so called harmless effects it has on users.

Most of the people that I partied with in my younger days have amounted to nothing. They are still stuck in the past living for the high. They don't care if they have any material possesions.

With all due respect, amounting to "nothing" is an opinion, and each person must choose for himself that for which he will live. If a man doesn't care that he has no material possessions, why should we care? Some people choose to live with nothing for reasons other than drugs (usually religion); is that to be banned as well?

Their offspring suffer from an impoverished up bringing and most likely a broken home.

Unfortunately, this is rather common with or without the influence of drugs. In many cases, the people who come to the decision that drug use would improve their lives probably aren't the kind of peopole who would make the best parents anyway.

To legalize pot is just another poison that disourages personal achievement and another way for the goverment to put a tax on the poor. The goverment is already collecting its fair share of taxes from alcohol and tabbaco.

Will the tax collected on pot offset the cost of law enforcement to respond to crimes from those people that have to steal to afford the drug? It can not be argued that pot is non-addictive. For what reason would a person choose to use the drug and see their chances for personal developement be wasted away and their family life crushed?

Legalizing something does NOT in any way make it a requirement. Alcohol and tobacco are legal now. Some people choose to use them, and some others choose not to use.
This is the kind of situation that DontCryMrJefferson was proposing in his original post. He was offering the idea that, while drug use isn't really a good decision, a just government has no authority to take that decision away from its citizens.

People have a natural right to liberty. This means that a person may choose to do whatever he wants so long as it does not violate the rights of another. The purpose of a government is to protect each man's liberty. When a government instead chooses to violate a man's liberty (in this case, by taking away the decision to injest certain chemicals into his own body), then that government has overstepped its bounds.

My opinion is just that and it may not be very popular. I know my brothers would not think much of it. But I look at them and see 2 failed marriges and a lack of ambition in their lives. Just my two cents worth.

I'm sorry about your brothers, and I wish that were not the case. I have four brothers of my own, and I know how much it hurts to watch them make poor decisions.
However, I must let them live their own lives. I certainly try to encourage them to make good decisions, and for the most part all of them do. But if try to force them to live a certain way, then I am trying to live their lives for them, which is overstepping my bounds. I would hate it if one of them chose to waste his life using drugs, but it is his own life. Until his actions directly violate the rights of another person, he is within his own rights.

[RunningOnMT]

First let me state that I don't use any illegal drugs and rarely consume alcohol. I have often thought the war on drugs was a sham at best. No I don't like those in the illegal drug trade and would just as soon they were all locked up, but that is because the drug laws have created a job for most of these thugs.

It seems to me that it is a persons natural right to ingest anything they choose. If this causes conduct that infringes on the rights and safety of others then punish the offense not their drug use. I mean if I discover that eating the dandelions growing in my front yard makes me feel good, whose business is it?

By making certain substances illegal we have created a criminal market. Imagine if the government were to open drug stores and provided free heroin and other drugs to addicts. The cost of this would be very low as most of the drugs can be manufactured for a small fraction of their street value. One thing that would happen is that a massive source of income to organized crime would be dried up. Those who do have a drug problem will be relieved from the need to sell and "push" drugs to others (including children) in order to feed their own addiction. Think how much safer the streets would be for old ladies that wont have somebody bang them over the head for the few dollars they might have in their purses.

I wont get involved in promoting the positive attributes of any illegal substances. I have mostly stayed away from such substances because I didn't care for the social and political environment of their use. Those willing to break the laws in order to possesss these drugs are more likely to have values different from my own. However in all honesty from what I have witnessed, alcohol consumption probably causes more problems for others than marijuana. As to the safety of firearms in the posasesion of a drug user; Is it any more dangerous for firearms to be in the home of a pot smoker than it is for car keys to be in the possession of a drinker?

[kchociej]

Swiss!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27987734/

[jacksonco]

I see that some take a liberal stance towards drugs and the legalization of them. That is also an opinion with out any factual basis.

My views are conservative and I feel that the goverment has np business to be in the drug trafficing business,

[jacksonco]

deleted text of duplicated post... sorry y'all had to see it twice as if once wasn't enough.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by jacksonco

I see that some take a liberal stance towards drugs and the legalization of them. That is also an opinion with out any factual basis.

My views are conservative and I feel that the goverment has np business to be in the drug trafficing business,

The legalization of drugs is, as you said, a liberal stance; however, it is liberal in the classical sense, in which "liberal" is related to "liberty" (which is not really the case anymore).

I don't want drugs to be legalized because I think they are good or because I want to use them. In contrast, I think they should be legalized because government does not have the authority to take that liberty away from its citizens. This idea of limiting the power of government is very much a conservative idea (by today's standards of liberal and conservative).

I agree with you that a government has no business in drug trafficking; however, by no business I mean no place at all, neither taking part in it nor banning it.

If the government has the right to ban drugs because some people on drugs commit other crimes, then wouldn't the government have the right to ban guns for the same reason, i.e. that some people with guns commit crimes. I don't like drugs any more than you do, but I like governments seizing authority even less.

[308 at my gate]

Dontcrymrjefferson just look at the netherlands for a good example of what happens when drugs are legalized. It does not have a good outcome. I bet everyone in this forum has someone close or knows someone who has had their life destroyed because of drugs. alcoholism I agree is a problem but why make it worse by adding even more self destructive devices for people to use. Do Not make drugs legal.

[DontCryMrJefferson]

I'm curious about your extensive medical, chemical and physical research...what sort of research have you done?

If you're asking if I've done research in a lab, then no. I'm sorry if my words implied that. I mean reading. However, I believe you would hard pressed to find a non-biased scientist who will say that society would definitely fall apart if drugs were legalized. No study that I'm aware of has ever shown this.

As far as I know there's nothing terribly wrong with the Netherlands (please enlighten me) where most drugs are illegal by the way.

I am certainly not advocating using drugs and messing with firearms. I am also not advocating any "positive effects" of illegal drugs (although you can't deny that there is barely any difference, chemically and physiologically, between morphine and heroin for example) although of course there are some when used in moderation. It is when drugs are abused that they become a problem (hmmmm... like almost everything else). I think CampingJosh hit the nail on the head. Although I may not like drugs or the effects some of them have on some people it is not my right, or the government's, to restrict the natural right's of its citizens even with majority support or consensus.

Let me ask you this, if you thought gun crime is on par with "drug crime" would you still support the right to bear arms? Yes? Why? Because it is our natural right to self defense and government has no right to take that right away, correct? Can you see where I'm headed with this?

Crime is a non-issue here. Liberty and natural rights are the only issue. If I may quote Thomas Jefferson (are you sick of it yet? haha) again:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."

Even though this was in the context of religious freedom, to say that Jefferson meant this only as it applied to religious freedom would be an insult at best, in my opinion. He was one of the most firm supporters of our right to keep and bear arms and the author of our Declaration of Independence, mind you.

Basically, the government has no business making any law restricting the freedoms of an individual unless, in practicing those freedoms, he/she infringes on the freedoms of another. The act of smoking cannabis does not hurt anyone just as the act of owning a weapon and shooting it at the range doesn't. It is when these things are abused, causing harm to the liberty of others through an act perpetrated by an individual, that government can step in and punish that act.

THIS IS A TRULY CONSERVATIVE POINT OF VIEW.

Therefore, just as with the right to bear arms, it matters not how much crime we think this object is "creating". What matters is what powers a legitimate government of a truly free people can exercise. I am of the opinion that for one to take any other stance is to stand also in opposition to the notion that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon by the government of a free people.

And as far as what would happen if drugs were legalized:

We were perfectly fine before 1914. What is so fundamentally different now?

Can we at least agree that banning drugs while keeping alcohol legal is hypocritical at best? And of course we can all agree that alcohol is much worse than any other illegal drug, right (that does not include effects of the illegal drug trade since this is created by the illegality of drugs; but even then...)?

EDIT

Dontcrymrjefferson just look at the netherlands for a good example of what happens when drugs are legalized.

Since I have asked you guys to correct my logical fallacies I feel it only appropriate to "help" you with yours. This is a "Confusing Cause and Effect" fallacy in which you assume that A caused B because A and B occur together or after one another. Just because things are "bad" (as you seem to assert) in the Netherlands does not mean that it was caused by relaxed enforcement of drug laws. Even if you had a scientific study that suggested it it would still only show a correlation and true cause and effect could only be determined after there is a proper amount of evidence for it. Usually this requires that no other cause (or effect) is possible or likely.

[carver]

This one really touches some nerves! I think all drugs should be legal to all people. Just like guns should be legal to all people. This subject makes me so mad I really have to keep a tight regin on myself. War on Drugs! What a stupid statement! The war is against us!

[jacksonco]

Drugs are one of the biggest reasons that there is a big push on for gun control or the out right banning of guns. Almost all crime in this country is the result of alcohol abuse or drug abuse.

It can be argued that people have the right to choose what they do to their bodies but they do not have the right to disrupt the life of sociaty. We pay for legal and illegal drug abuse everytime we go to the doctor or hospital. We pay for it when we purchase auto insurance. We pay for it every day.

Making access to these drugs easier for people will increase the amount of abuse and the overall effect it has on sociaty.

[DontCryMrJefferson]

Drugs are one of the biggest reasons that there is a big push on for gun control or the out right banning of guns.

Correction, drug control is one of the biggest reasons that there is a big push for gun control. The amount of crime associated with the drug trade is purely a symptom of the War On Drugs (and illegality of them) itself. A reference does not even need to be cited for this because it is a widely known fact to people on both sides of the issue.

Almost all crime in this country is the result of alcohol abuse or drug abuse.

Could you please cite references? Also, can you show that this crime is not because of or directly related to the illegality of drugs? I believe this misconception is probably as common as the one that claims "assault weapons" are "automatic".

Did you know there are a large group of officers in this country that support legalization of drugs in order to reduce crime? Are they all misled? Or is it more likely that the majority is misled just like with gun laws?

www.leap.org

It can be argued that people have the right to choose what they do to their bodies but they do not have the right to disrupt the life of sociaty. We pay for legal and illegal drug abuse everytime we go to the doctor or hospital. We pay for it when we purchase auto insurance. We pay for it every day.

Exactly. A gun causes crime just like drugs cause crime. An equally valid argument can be made for banning both because of crime. Then all you would be squabbling over is the amount of crime. Criminals are obviously going to get guns whatever the law says, right? It works the exact same way with drugs. To me, there is no difference between the two other than a Constitutional Amendment (not that we need one anyone, both are natural rights endowed upon us by our "creator"). How many billions of dollars have we wasted on the War On Drugs? What about just last year? ~69 billion? And for what? The same percentage of people admitted to doing drugs in the early 1900s as they do today (if you want a reference, I'll find it; let me know).

How much money do we pay out because of guns? Does that mean they should be banned too? Why not? What is the fundamental difference?

I think the underlying issue here is not what seems logical, rational and "liberal" but what ideas one has been instilled with since birth. I used to believe all drugs should be illegal until I started opening my mind and saying, "Maybe these things I've believed for so long as a child and teenager are false. Maybe cannabis smokers aren't just crazy."

I am confident that any rational thinker, after looking honestly at the evidence and dismissing biased misconceptions will come to the conclusion that, in a free society, nothing less can be expected of government. You may not agree with the use of drugs but surely we can say that for one to do a drug, as long as they do not hurt anyone else, is their natural right that cannot be taken away by government.

If we wish to offset the cost of drug users in hospitals (like right now) why not make them pay for it themselves? If they can't pay for it then they don't get medical care. But that would make our society too independent and free, of course. Remember, the only reason we have to pay is because we've gone astray from the original meaning and intent (if you are a supporter of original intent "theory") of the Constitution. This is not the USASR--yet.

I seriously do not understand how someone can support firearm ownership and believe it is a natural right and, at the same time, support the continued illegality of most types of drugs. How are these two beliefs not at odds with eachother? Could someone please explain this to me? I know I used to hold these seemingly contradictory beliefs until someone called me a hypocrite one day; I thought about it long and hard because of that person and eventually (within about a year) changed my mind completely on the subject.

From what I have seen in the "illegal drug trade" most crimes are committed because of how expensive drugs are and because disputes must be settled without police. I have seen this over and over again. Remember, these are both symptoms of the illegality of drugs.

EDIT

I would like to add that I am very glad that we are remaining civil and tactful. This is very rare when this subject is discussed. I think it is indicative of our ability to act as mature adults, curbing our emotions, when it comes to such an inflammatory subject. Also, the fact that we can disagree on one subject and fight for another, together, is a good sign! Thanks everyone!

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by jacksonco

Drugs are one of the biggest reasons that there is a big push on for gun control or the out right banning of guns. Almost all crime in this country is the result of alcohol abuse or drug abuse.

It can be argued that people have the right to choose what they do to their bodies but they do not have the right to disrupt the life of sociaty. We pay for legal and illegal drug abuse everytime we go to the doctor or hospital. We pay for it when we purchase auto insurance. We pay for it every day.

Making access to these drugs easier for people will increase the amount of abuse and the overall effect it has on sociaty.

The reason there is so much crime as a result of drug abuse is because drugs are illegal. If they were legal then a lot of crime would be eliminated because those using wouldn't be criminals. That's a no brainer.

Secondly, because they are illegal they are expensive. Crimes are commited to get the money for drugs.

Lastly, by making drugs illegal the government has created a lucrative business for those who are already criminals. With legalized drugs you eliminate that huge source of income.

[Teejay9]

The "War on Drugs" is a farce. They, the Government, have throwing billions of dollars at the problem now for more than 30 years. How's it going so far? I agree that drugs, alcohol especially, and guns don't mix well. Just as with Prohibition, the Government has made a lot of criminals rich. Drugs are a personal choice and many people make bad choices. Having said that, if done in the privacy of their own homes, certainly not driving, operating heavy machinery,or handling dangerous items, etc., then who really cares? All things in moderation. Some, such as MJ, have a quite soothing effect for some people. As others have stated, as long as it does not have an adverse impact on others, including one's family, I believe most drugs should be de-criminalized. TJ

[carver]

Originally Posted by DontCryMrJefferson

Correction, drug control is one of the biggest reasons that there is a big push for gun control. The amount of crime associated with the drug trade is purely a symptom of the War On Drugs (and illegality of them) itself. A reference does not even need to be cited for this because it is a widely known fact to people on both sides of the issue.



Could you please cite references? Also, can you show that this crime is not because of or directly related to the illegality of drugs? I believe this misconception is probably as common as the one that claims "assault weapons" are "automatic".

Did you know there are a large group of officers in this country that support legalization of drugs in order to reduce crime? Are they all misled? Or is it more likely that the majority is misled just like with gun laws?

www.leap.org



Exactly. A gun causes crime just like drugs cause crime. An equally valid argument can be made for banning both because of crime. Then all you would be squabbling over is the amount of crime. Criminals are obviously going to get guns whatever the law says, right? It works the exact same way with drugs. To me, there is no difference between the two other than a Constitutional Amendment (not that we need one anyone, both are natural rights endowed upon us by our "creator"). How many billions of dollars have we wasted on the War On Drugs? What about just last year? ~69 billion? And for what? The same percentage of people admitted to doing drugs in the early 1900s as they do today (if you want a reference, I'll find it; let me know).

How much money do we pay out because of guns? Does that mean they should be banned too? Why not? What is the fundamental difference?

I think the underlying issue here is not what seems logical, rational and "liberal" but what ideas one has been instilled with since birth. I used to believe all drugs should be illegal until I started opening my mind and saying, "Maybe these things I've believed for so long as a child and teenager are false. Maybe cannabis smokers aren't just crazy."

I am confident that any rational thinker, after looking honestly at the evidence and dismissing biased misconceptions will come to the conclusion that, in a free society, nothing less can be expected of government. You may not agree with the use of drugs but surely we can say that for one to do a drug, as long as they do not hurt anyone else, is their natural right that cannot be taken away by government.

If we wish to offset the cost of drug users in hospitals (like right now) why not make them pay for it themselves? If they can't pay for it then they don't get medical care. But that would make our society too independent and free, of course. Remember, the only reason we have to pay is because we've gone astray from the original meaning and intent (if you are a supporter of original intent "theory") of the Constitution. This is not the USASR--yet.

I seriously do not understand how someone can support firearm ownership and believe it is a natural right and, at the same time, support the continued illegality of most types of drugs. How are these two beliefs not at odds with eachother? Could someone please explain this to me? I know I used to hold these seemingly contradictory beliefs until someone called me a hypocrite one day; I thought about it long and hard because of that person and eventually (within about a year) changed my mind completely on the subject.

From what I have seen in the "illegal drug trade" most crimes are committed because of how expensive drugs are and because disputes must be settled without police. I have seen this over and over again. Remember, these are both symptoms of the illegality of drugs.

EDIT

I would like to add that I am very glad that we are remaining civil and tactful. This is very rare when this subject is discussed. I think it is indicative of our ability to act as mature adults, curbing our emotions, when it comes to such an inflammatory subject. Also, the fact that we can disagree on one subject and fight for another, together, is a good sign! Thanks everyone!

Very well said! Drugs, like guns, are inanimate. As such there is no way that either could cause crime. People cause crime.