Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

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

[tpaine]

If memory serves, this letter may have been posted at FR in the past, but it deserves a repost.

[Anti-Bubba182]

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[anobjectivist]

I have known this for a while. If you make narcotics legal, the price will become so low and the manufacturing of these drugs will become such a part of america that "drug countries" and a lot of the filth our nation sees will no longer exist.

What historically seems to be the easiest way to make a product go up in value? Make it illegal. And with the money there and with the presence of organization, crime goes up and the number of solutions goes down.

[Jeff Gordon]

It is amazing how much this useless war on drugs has eroded the liberties of all Americans.

[steve50]

It is amazing how much this useless war on drugs has eroded the liberties of all Americans.

You'd almost think it was designed that way, if we didn't know better

[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 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.

[tpaine]

"What historically seems to be the easiest way to make a product go up in value? Make it illegal. And with the money there and with the presence of organization, crime goes up and the number of solutions goes down." -AO-

The drug warrior socialists among us could care less. -- High crime justifies ever more effort to control society.
This is socialisms goal

[Sparta]

The drug war, the bi-partisian threat to our liberty. Guns and Ammo had a good series of articles about how the forfeiture laws(a result of our wonderful drug war) were being used to justify the confiscation of firearms from homes.

[tpaine]

"It is amazing how much this useless war on drugs has eroded the liberties of all Americans." -JG-


What is truly amazing is to see the self-described conservative drug warriors here at FR, --- deny that our liberty is threatened.

[gundog]

Local law enforcement had a fit when Oregon voters made it necessary for persons to be convicted before their property was subject to forfeiture.

[robertpaulsen]

Learn something every day. On the one hand, we have an amendment which specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and that amendment is under assault by the gun grabbers. I understand.

According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere.

So, how can the author "connect" the two? He can't.

Also, note how the author thinks he's the next Federalist with the Amicus Populi signature. What a swell-headed buffoon.

[tpaine]

Jeff Gordon:
It is amazing how much this useless war on drugs has eroded the liberties of all Americans.

You'd almost think it was designed that way, if we didn't know better
5 -steve50-

The rise of American socialism is exactly matched by prohibitionism.

[tpaine]

Learn something every day.

So you claim, yet your posts belie you.

On the one hand, we have an amendment which specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and that amendment is under assault by the gun grabbers. I understand.

Big of you. Thanks.

According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere.

Try the 9th, where it says rights need not be enumerated. - Or the 14th, where it says we have a right to life, liberty and property.

So, how can the author "connect" the two? He can't.

He did just that in a lengthy letter filled with logical points. - You offer a simple denial. Emphasis 'simple'.

Also, note how the author thinks he's the next Federalist with the Amicus Populi signature. What a swell-headed buffoon.

And you offer a buffoons retort. - Thanks.

[Puppage]

If you make narcotics legal

And, if you made bank robberies legal, no one would be killed in the attempt of a bank robbery. The Netherlands has extremely liberal drug laws & their public parks are LOADED with addicts shooting up under the shade tree, and leaving their hypos behind. Legalization is not the way.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[robertpaulsen]

The 9th and 14th say nothing about drugs being legal. The 2nd says everything about guns being legal. I repeat, no connection.

His letter was filled with points. None of them had anything to do with a connection to the 2nd amendment. The author probably wrote a similar letter to newspapers and churches substituting "1st amendment" for "2nd amendment" and claiming that "they're coming after you next".

"We're not fighting for drugs, we're defending the Bill of Rights!". Yeah, right.

[caltrop]

No, legalization isn't, IMHO, the way. Giving each drug addict a card from the Board of Health allowing him to get his fix from the Board of Health for on premises consumption at cost is. The incentive to push drugs would immedialtely disappear and we'd be on the way, over time, to almost entirely eliminating drug addiction in America. To those who say this makes it easier for someone to remain an addict instead of shaking the habit all I can say is that's too bad. I'm only concerned about those who haven't thrown their lives away and in preventing the victimization of others by drug addicts who have chosen to destroy themselves. Nobody can save someone from himself - the sooner that's understood the better.

[Puppage]

allowing him to get his fix from the Board of Health for on premises consumption at cost is

So, this BOH will have crack & meth, and not just heroin? Or, do we just give them the most popular drug at the time? Crack is the most prevalent drug on the street now....so if this BOH doesn't "stock" that drug, THOSE dealers are still spreading their filth, aren't they? So, let's just legalize EVERYTHING, that way NOTHING will ever harm society again.

A Libertarian society is not acceptable IMHO. Why should we reward addiction??

[tpaine]

I have known this for a while. If you make narcotics legal, the price will become so low and the manufacturing of these drugs will become such a part of america that "drug countries" and a lot of the filth our nation sees will no longer exist.
What historically seems to be the easiest way to make a product go up in value? Make it illegal. And with the money there and with the presence of organization, crime goes up and the number of solutions goes down. #3 -AO-

And, if you made bank robberies legal, no one would be killed in the attempt of a bank robbery. The Netherlands has extremely liberal drug laws & their public parks are LOADED with addicts shooting up under the shade tree, and leaving their hypos behind.

Read much? AO addresses that point, "a lot of the filth our nation sees will no longer exist." Refute his point, instead of making silly comparisons beween robbery & drug 'crime'.

Legalization is not the way.

'Drugs' were 'legal' for most of US history. - They have been prohibited by unconstituional methods, which point you refuse to acknowledge. Are you a socialist, or a conservative?
-- You cannot be a 'conservative' prohibitionist.

[Puppage]

'Drugs' were 'legal' for most of US history

So? Lots of "things" were legal at one point in our countries history...doesn't mean because they ONCE WERE, that we were better off then.

They have been prohibited by unconstituional methods, which point you refuse to acknowledge

Just WHERE in my previous post do I acknowlege, or NOT acknowledge this "point", oh legal scholar???