Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

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

[thisiskubrick]

'Stan', -- I really wish you would avoid posting inane graphics. It's a form of spamming a thread, imo. Please, if you object to something here, have the guts to say so.

I don't have anything in particular to object to. However you are objecting to my post; so here is my rebuttal:

- The post was on topic.

- It falls into the category known as "humor".

- "Spam" is posting ads, porn, off-topic information, multiple postings, etc. A single post that annoys you isn't spam.

- If you object to images being posted - you might be interested to know that there's a similar tenet in Islam (prohibitions against art depicting the human form). So do you want to be in the same camp as (fill in the blank)?

Best,
Kubrick

[antaresequity]

Thanks for the post...

[Wonder Warthog]

"Stills had to be licensed, barrels had to stamped, logbooks had to be kept on site. Only an idiot would think that you can tax an item without regulations."

There is a great difference between the bureaucratic "regulations" needed collect a tax (and which only apply to the manufacturers of same) , and regulations mandating the mode of use or non-use of an item by the public at large. It you don't understand that simple fact, then YOU are the idiot.

[robertpaulsen]

Ask any of the dopers on this board if they would go to the local Board of Health to have themselves certified as drug addicted in order to obtain drugs at cost (and at taxpayer expense, mind you).

You haven't really thought this through, have you?

[robertpaulsen]

"States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns."

Can you point out where in the California State Constitution an individual has the right to keep and bear arms? I'll save you the time. It's nowhere to be found.

California did not "bring over" the 2nd amendment as part of the 14th. California is one of only five states whose constitutions are silent on the issue of gun rights, including Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.

California can ban all guns. Right now, they choose not to.

[caltrop]

As long as you bring up the question of thinking things through, let me point out that drugs supplied by the Boards of Health at cost don't, by definition, incur any cost to the Boards of Health. Along the same lines, it's difficult to know how many dopers would avail themselves of the opportunity to get their drugs for very little if they're willing to have their local Board of Health certify their addiction. My guess, however, is that most of them would.

Thinking things through is a great policy. You should give it a try.

[William Terrell]

The 9th and 14th say nothing about drugs being legal.

So. You figure that the 9th amendment, to be meaningful, should be worded something like this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage

to dispose of garbage
to chose the stype of dress
to drink coffee
to drink distilled spirits
to drink beer
to buy a car
to celebrate birthdays
to throw a party
to eliminate waste products
to wash clothes
to cook meals
to eat out
to cut lawns
to fly flags
to burp
to fart
to blow the nose
to wash the car
to operate a computer
to chose an operating system fot eh computer
to choose software
to write letters
to inherit property
to plant crops
to darn socks
to travel
to walk the dog
to sing
to snore
to rise early
to rise late
to spend money
to eat turkey
to eat chicken
to take medicine
(et endless cetera)

retained by the people.

Is that it?

[robertpaulsen]

Where would the Boards of Health obtain cocaine at cost? Heroin? PCP? Ecstasy?

[robertpaulsen]

Of course not. If one wants to make a case for legalizing drugs based on the 9th or 14th amendment, be my guest.

But that's not what the author of the article was doing, was it? He was attempting to compare drug freedom with gun freedom, a right specifically protected by the 2nd amendment.

Drugs were not given such an amendment. And, if the 9th and 14th amendments say so much about protecting the freedoms you so copiously listed, why list guns separately? Surely if one is free to burp, fart, and buy a car, why not guns?

Comparing the freedom to do drugs with the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, elevates drug use to a level it does not deserve.

[Roscoe]

There is a great difference between the bureaucratic "regulations" needed collect a tax

And now you're reduced to Clintonizing your original assertion by amending it with a lame "distinction" and then begging the question of its alleged legal "difference."

Pathetic.

[jeremiah]

You need to read for content, not for targets, the WOD assaults all the rights. This erosion of our rights is happening because of the it. Stop this WOD, which will end the violence, thereby lessening pressure to ban weapons. The fear of an armed populace by liberals, is matched by the fear of addicts and the possibility that ones children will become one, by conservatives. Of course, it is easier for a child to procure drugs, than it is for the average adult. This is seen as proof, that as it becomes easier for an adult to legally buy or use drugs, kids will be more greatly affected. The way I see it, there is a small percent that cannot handle alchohol, drugs, gambling etc. That percentage is a steady and unchangeable figure, whether drugs are legal, (look at addiction numbers before prohibition, for both alchohol and drugs, and after). Legalizing, or criminalization, changes the figure very little. Of course more people may use, but rates of abuse will change very little.

[Roscoe]

Comparing the freedom to do drugs with the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, elevates drug use to a level it does not deserve.

And it discredits the right to keep and bear arms. Not that they care.

[jeremiah]

Have you been to the Netherlands, seen these parks littered with addicts and hypos? Have you been to similar parks here in the US? They both exist, as do parks full of homosexuals in various stages of sexually activity. If we have parks full of these sorts of people now, why bemoan the drugs? Tell the police to clean them up. Roust the vagrants, arrest them, make them so uncomfortable as to not do the activity. I personally believe, that this hypothetical park(s) in the Netherlands, is an overstated bit of propaganda. Brought out to continue the scare tactics of the Drug Warriors. Public intoxication is not tolerated in any society, that would not change if drugs were decriminalized.

[Puppage]

Public intoxication is not tolerated in any society, that would not change if drugs were decriminalized.

My point exactly.

[Roscoe]

http://www.photowords.com/Needle%20Park,%20opening,%20black.htm

[tpaine]

On topic? In what way?

[jeremiah]

The girl that becomes a prostitute to support a drug habit, either needs to make large cash to afford the drugs, or is one of those that could care less about her life and body anyway. In the first case, she would not need to become a streetwalker, in the second she would have anyway. Nothing is prevented, but with the WOD, one is more likely to regress down the food chain. An old lady is more likely to be accosted now, than in the past. Much of that change is due to the rise of gangs(who fuel an unproductive lifestyle by making large quantities of cash, at little effort) the WOD is directly responsible for. Take the 15-45 yo male out of the drug business, and watch crime rates plummet, out of wedlock births among the poorest drop too. In other words, a more civil society. Then of course, all the money spent chasing users and dealers, could be used to catch thieves, rapists and murderers. Maybe even allow police to begin walking beats again, which was abandoned because of fear of assasinations.

[thisiskubrick]

In a way that is rather obvious.

[tpaine]

wrote: "States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns."

Can you point out where in the California State Constitution an individual has the right to keep and bear arms? I'll save you the time. It's nowhere to be found.

Immaterial. - We have an inalienable right to bear arms, protected by the US Constitution.

California did not "bring over" the 2nd amendment as part of the 14th.

-?- Can you explain the meaning of this line of gibberish?

California is one of only five states whose constitutions are silent on the issue of gun rights, including Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.

So? - The RKBA was so self-evident back then that some states didn't bother to enumerate it, imo.

California can ban all guns. Right now, they choose not to.

Good grief, listen to yourself supporting the 'right' of states to ban anything. Why do you claim to be a conservative? Go to DU to spread your agit-prop.

[tpaine]

Nope. -- Its getting obvious that you can't explain your own weird behavior in posting that pic on several different threads.