Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[tpaine]

Ms. Nancy Snell Swickard - Publisher Shotgun News P. O. Box 669, Hastings, NE 68902

Dear Ms. Swickard,

I was very distressed to see the remark of one of your subscribers which you quoted on page 8 of your October 1 (1996) issue. The support of the "Drug War" by anyone who values the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is the most dangerous error of thinking in the politics of the "gun control" debate. This error is extremely widespread, although there have been some recent signs that some Americans are seeing through the propaganda of the Drug Warriors which affects all levels of our society.

Sadly, major players in the defense of the 2nd Amendment (like the NRA) show no signs of awareness of the part played by the Drug War in our present hysteria over violence. This is a serious error, because the violence produced by the Drug War is one of the main reasons that a majority of American citizens support gun control. Without the majority of a citizenry frightened by endemic violence, Mr. Clinton and his allies in the Congress would not enjoy the power they now possess to attack the Bill of Rights.

To understand the effect of the Drug War, we must understand it for what it is: the second Prohibition in America in this Century. I do not need to remind anyone who knows our recent history what a disaster the first Prohibition was. It is a classic example of the attempt to control a vice--drunkenness--by police power. It made all use of alcohol a case of abuse. It produced such an intense wave of violence that it gave a name--The Roaring Twenties--to an entire decade. It lead to the establishment of powerful criminal empires, to widespread corruption in police and government, and to a surge of violence and gunfire all over the land. And it produced a powerful attack on the Bill of Rights, including the most successful campaign of gun control laws in America up to that time.

Before the first Prohibition criminalized the trade in alcohol, liquor dealers were ordinary businessmen; after 1920 they were all violent criminals fighting for their territories. We had gang wars, and drive-by shootings, and the use of machine guns by criminals.

We now have the same effects of the first Prohibition in the present Drug War, and Americans appear to be sleepwalking through it with no apparent understanding of what is happening. It is testimony to the truth of Santayana's famous remark that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. We must understand that this has all happened before, and for the same reasons.

It is essential that defenders of the 2nd Amendment understand that the whole Bill of Rights is under attack by the Drug War, and that assaults on the 2nd Amendment are a natural part of that trend. What is the main premise of a gun-control law? It is that guns are implements which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. What is the main premise of Drug Prohibition? It is that drugs are substances which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. Both lines of reasoning say that because a few people abuse something, all Americans must be treated like children or irresponsibles. All use is abuse.

This is an extremely dangerous idea for a government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. It is a natural consequence that such thinking will lead to attacks on the Bill of Rights, because that is the chief defense in the Constitution against abuses of government power.

Since the beginning of the Drug War, no article of the Bill of Rights has been spared from attack. There has been an enormous increase in police power in America, with a steady erosion of protections against unreasonable search and seizure, violations of privacy, confiscation of property, and freedom of speech. We have encouraged children to inform on their parents and we tolerate urine tests as a condition of employment for anyone. All who question the wisdom of Drug Prohibition are immediately attacked and silenced. These are all violations of the Bill of Rights. Are we surprised when the 2nd Amendment is attacked along with the others?

We understand that opponents of the 2nd Amendment exaggerate the dangers of firearms and extrapolate the actions of deranged persons and criminals to all gun owners. That is their method of propaganda. Do we also know that Drug Warriors exaggerate the hazards of drug use--"all use is abuse'--in the same way formerly done with alcohol, and extrapolate the condition of addicts to all users of drugs? That is their method of propaganda. Most Americans are convinced by both arguments, and both arguments depend on the public's ignorance. That is why discussion and dissent is inhibited.

Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same.

Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments. Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition. We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.

If we do not explain to people that the fusillade of gunfire in America, the return to drive-by shooting, and our bulging prisons, come from the criminalizing of commerce in illegal drugs, we cannot expect them to listen to a plea that we must tolerate some risk in defense of liberty.

Why should we tolerate, for the sake of liberty, the risk of a maniac shooting a dozen people, when we cannot tolerate the risk that a drug-user will become an addict?

In fact, very few gun-owners are mass murderers and a minority of drug-users are addicts, but people are easily persuaded otherwise and easily driven to hysteria by exaggerating dangers. What addict would be a violent criminal if he could buy his drug from a pharmacy for its real price instead of being driven to the inflated price of a drug smuggler? How many cigarette smokers would become burglars or prostitutes if their habits cost them $200 per day? How many criminal drug empires could exist if addicts could buy a drug for its real cost? And, without Prohibition, what smuggler's territory would be worth a gang war? And why isn't this obvious to all of us?

It is because both guns and drugs have become fetishes to some people in America. They blame guns and drugs for all the intractable ills of society, and they never rest until they persuade the rest of us to share their deranged view of the evil power in an inanimate object.

They succeed, mainly, by lies and deception. They succeed by inducing the immediate experience of anxiety and horror by the mere mention of the words: Guns! Drugs! Notice your reactions. Once that response is in place, it is enough to make us accept any remedy they propose. An anxious person is an easy mark. They even persuade us to diminish the most precious possession of Americans, the one marveled at by every visitor and cherished by every immigrant, and the name of which is stamped on every coin we mint--Liberty. They say that liberty is just too dangerous or too expensive. They say we will have to do with less of it for our own good. That is the price they charge for their promise of our security.

Sincerely,

Amicus Populi

[Ken H]

IMO, the DOJ used those numbers for the same reason you did -- to support some previously reached conclusion.

What conclusion did the DOJ previously reach?

[robertpaulsen]

That heroin use was a problem -- therefore they need more money.

100,000 addicts won't get you as much money as a million addicts. So they grabbed the larger number. As did you.

Ah, here's the footnote:

"As with cocaine, estimates for the size of the hardcore heroin using population are derived from mathematical models rather than probability-based population survey estimates."

A mathematical model. Well, color me convinced. Especially by this:

"As expected, given this alternative criterion for truthful reporting, truthfulness by heroin users is greater than truthfulness for cocaine users."

"Thus, let TRUTH = 0.73 for heroin and 0.61 for cocaine. Then an adjusted estimate for the number of heavy users equals:"

See, they compensate for truthfulness. (With some random number.) MUCH better than an actual survey. Sure it is.

[Ken H]

If you are going to indict the DOJ numbers, then isn't the whole DOJ guilty? And if the DOJ is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our justice system in general? I put it to you, robertpaulsen, isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to me, but I'm not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!

[robertpaulsen]

"If you are going to indict the DOJ numbers, then isn't the whole DOJ guilty? And if the DOJ is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our justice system in general? I put it to you, robertpaulsen, isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to me, but I'm not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America!"

One of my favorite films.

[tpaine]

Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited.

Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same.

Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments.
Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition.
We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The above is logical core of the article. ---
--- Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.

Governments are limited to legally 'reasonable' regulatory powers by the basic principles of our constitution.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Logical core bump.

[absolootezer0]

by your arguement, abortion cannot be outlawed.

[Wonder Warthog]

"...by your arguement, abortion cannot be outlawed."

At the FEDERAL level, that's probably true. At the STATE level, it certainly was not (at least not until the Supreme Court invented "abortion rights" out of thin air---it's certainly not in the Constitution).

[Texaggie79]

WOW, blast from the past. Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local. I can see the federal argument, as always, but you have yet to prove that STATES are prohibited from criminalizing material that they see as harmful enough to violate the rights of other citizens.

[tpaine]

Texaggie79 wrote:

WOW, blast from the past.

Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.

I can see the federal argument, as always, but you have yet to prove that STATES are prohibited from criminalizing material that they see as harmful enough to violate the rights of other citizens.

Article VI clearly says that State laws & constitutions notwithstanding, our US Constitution is the "Law of the Land".

The 10th says that powers are prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States. -- Powers to deprive people of rights to life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Thus, police powers that infringe on individual rights are Constitutionally prohibited.

Tex, this is not a complicated matter at all. -- Why would you want States to have the power to prohibit guns?

[tpaine]

Wonder Warthog wrote:

the Supreme Court invented "abortion rights" out of thin air--

The Roe v Wade abortion decision declared a Texas law in violation of due process and ruled that in the first trimester, it is unreasonable for a state to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion; --
--- during the second trimester, it is reasonable for a state to regulate abortion in the interest of the health of mothers; --
--- and in the third, the state has a reasonable interest in protecting the fetus.

Justice Harlan comments on due process:

     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.

This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777 --

[Texaggie79]

States cannot prohibit guns because they are enumerated in the BoR. However the Constitution specifically states that those not numerated are left respectively to the states.

[tpaine]

Tex, this is not a complicated matter at all. -- Why would you want States to have the power to prohibit guns?

States cannot prohibit guns because they are enumerated in the BoR.

However the Constitution specifically states that those not numerated are left respectively to the states.

Where in the Constitution is it specifically stated that those not 'numerated' are left respectively to the states?

You're wrong kid, as usual. I suspect you have a reading comprehension problem.

[Texaggie79]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I believe I have quoted that to you directly out of the US Constitution about 50 times now my friend. :D

[Texaggie79]

I keep forgetting to use the < p> tags. friggen html

[tpaine]

Tex, this is not a complicated matter at all. -- Why would you want States to have the power to prohibit guns?

States cannot prohibit guns because they are enumerated in the BoR.

However the Constitution specifically states that those not numerated are left respectively to the states.

Where in the Constitution is it specifically stated that those not 'numerated' are left respectively to the states?

You're wrong kid, as usual. I suspect you have a reading comprehension problem.

"-- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. --"

I believe I have quoted that to you directly out of the US Constitution about 50 times

And every time you quote, I remind you that the power to write legislation that deprives any person of life, liberty, or property [property like guns] without due process of law, -- is prohibited to the States by the 14th Amendment. - Just as it says in the 10th.
-- Will you ever 'get it'?

Read Justice Harlen on due process, [posted just above] and give it a good old texaggie try to understand the very simple principles involved.

[Texaggie79]

And every time you quote, I remind you that the power to write legislation that deprives any person of life, liberty, or property [property like guns] without due process of law, -- is prohibited to the States by the 14th Amendment. - Just as it says in the 10th. -- Will you ever 'get it'?

So a Nuclear warhead is property? What about eboli virus? If I wan't to keep that in my basement, is that "property" that the government can't deny me?

[Wonder Warthog]

"It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

As I said---out of thin air.

[tpaine]

Texaggie79 wrote:

So a Nuclear warhead is property? What about eboli virus? If I wan't to keep that in my basement, is that "property" that the government can't deny me?

Sophomoric argument tex. -- Its a given that all levels of government can legislate reasonable regulations about the storing & handling of dangerous nuclear & biochemical materials.

[Zon]

Roscoe: George Washington and the Founding Fathers disagreed with your ill-informed viewpoint. Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion?

tpaine: The whiskey rebellion was mainly about taxes. - Read a book.62

Here's what Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) has learned from community leaders.

"LEAP presents to civic, professional, educational, and religious organizations, as well as at public forums but we target civic groups; Chambers of Commerce, Rotaries, Lions and Kiwanis Clubs, etc. The people in these organizations are conservative folks who mostly agree with the drug-warriors that we must continue the war on drugs at any cost. They are also very solid members of their communities; people who belong to civic organizations because they want the best for their locales. Every one of them will be voting in every election. Many are policy-makers and if they are not, they are the people who can pull the coat tails of policy-makers and say, "We have someone you must hear talk about drug policy."

?After making more than nine hundred presentations where LEAP calls for the government to "end prohibition and legalize all drugs‹legalize them so we can control and regulate them and keep them out of the hands of our children," we have discovered that the vast majority of participants in those audiences agree with us. Even more amazing is that we are now attending national and international law-enforcement conventions where we keep track of all those we speak with at our exhibit booth; After we talk with them, 6% want to continue the war on drugs, 14% are undecided, and 80% agree with LEAP that we must end drug prohibition. The most interesting thing about this statistic is that only a small number of that 80% realized any others in law enforcement felt the same." LEAP

Police officers know that their job is to keep the peace. ...To protect people from one another. They know they cannot stop people from harming themselves.

The purpose of government is to protect people from harming one another. It cannot protect people from themselves.

[Zon]

The above is logical core of the article. ---
--- Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.

Governments are limited to legally 'reasonable' regulatory powers by the basic principles of our constitution.

Agreed.

Check this: Gun prohibition would only apply to citizens. The premise: citizens can't be trusted with guns. Government would still have guns. Supposedly government agents can be trusted with guns. They're seemingly made of some morally superior fiber than citizens. What  Frederick Bastiat chimes in. My edits in  [ ].

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free [keep and bear arms], how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind.

"They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority." -- Frederick Bastiat, The Law (1850)