Guns / Drugs II
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
Some of the people arguing for our current laws against drugs need to separate two ideas:
1. Drugs are bad.
2. Drugs should be illegal.
You can believe # 1 without believing # 2.
Anyone who has been around social work, health care, or police work knows that alcohol causes many more problems than illegal drugs. Most estimates are that alcohol causes about 100,000 deaths a year; illegal drug deaths are about 10% of that.
We couldn't keep alcohol out of the country, and we're never going to be able to keep drugs out. For that matter, the government would never be able to keep guns completely out of the country.
1. Drugs are bad.
2. Drugs should be illegal.
You can believe # 1 without believing # 2.
Anyone who has been around social work, health care, or police work knows that alcohol causes many more problems than illegal drugs. Most estimates are that alcohol causes about 100,000 deaths a year; illegal drug deaths are about 10% of that.
We couldn't keep alcohol out of the country, and we're never going to be able to keep drugs out. For that matter, the government would never be able to keep guns completely out of the country.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If I recall there are about 1300 cocaine deaths a year.
There are about 18,000 gun deaths a year of all types - or in that ball park.
Which war do you think will start first when our civil rights are violated?
One that means house to house searches of minority populations or one that starts with similar searches for legally owned guns.
There are about 18,000 gun deaths a year of all types - or in that ball park.
Which war do you think will start first when our civil rights are violated?
One that means house to house searches of minority populations or one that starts with similar searches for legally owned guns.
Henry Bowman
Moderator
Hello all, I'm thinking the words stiffnecked applies too most here! Here in Alaska "Holy Smokes" has a new definition..ya know? I'd like to buy ya all a round of your favorite adult beverage and ask you this? Isn't America about individual freedom? If a man chooses to shoot heroin or smoke dope or even dive to his death, how's that anyones business but his. The drugs are bad propoganda makes as much sense as saying fire is bad. Drug addicts choose to be addicts, I know I'm not the only person that's had an injury requiring morphine and didn't leave the hospital a drug addict! They're huge profits in drugs, legal and illegal and the government wants the monopoly on the illegals. Don't believe me, just read the testimony of Ollie North. I like the part where the CIA "misplaces" FOUR TONS of Peruvian Cocaine, oooops se ya..henry
Comparisons between guns and drugs don't work for the same reason that comparisons between cars and guns don't: there is no Constitutionally-protected right to take drugs. That being said, I wouldn't oppose legalization. It might provide an interesting way to view natural selection at work.
There is no way our society is going to legalize drugs. Does anyone realize how much money is spent on law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, jails, prison and probation officers. I don't do drugs and I don't associate with people that do but no department would take a position to legalize drugs because of the revenue and manpower they would loose.
Obviously this country is not willing to take the steps necessary to solve the drug problem. We had rather talk about it. What would be the effect if took the same approach to drugs as taken by Singapore, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Malasia? It is a political decision. We are not willing to pay that price. At best we make a half-hearted effort.
Again if we were serious why don't we prohibit anyone convicted of a drug offense from acting in a movie made or to be shown in the United States or playing for pay in any sports, period.
We are a country full of excuses. So long as you say you are sorry we will continue to give you one more chance.
Obviously this country is not willing to take the steps necessary to solve the drug problem. We had rather talk about it. What would be the effect if took the same approach to drugs as taken by Singapore, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Malasia? It is a political decision. We are not willing to pay that price. At best we make a half-hearted effort.
Again if we were serious why don't we prohibit anyone convicted of a drug offense from acting in a movie made or to be shown in the United States or playing for pay in any sports, period.
We are a country full of excuses. So long as you say you are sorry we will continue to give you one more chance.
citizenguardian
New member
Glenn,
There are, broadly speaking, two sorts of reasons to bring to bear on this comparison. One sort is consequentialist, which is to say reasons having to do with how well off people will be (or not) as result of either policy. The second are, unsurprisingly, non-consequentialist, which can appeal to a range of factors but here will mainly appeal to the rights of individuals.
Now, yes, rights of individuals legally speaking are often justified morally on consequentialist grounds, but I'm going to ignore that for the time being. I'm going to assume that a right is a (defeasible) reason to place against the claim that things would be better all things considered if some action were done. That will just make things simpler.
When it comes to drugs, the prohibitions are paternalistic in nature. Paternalism here will just mean restrictions on people for their own good. Paternalism might be challenged on consequentialist grounds. It might be argued that people are all things considered better off if they can decide rather than the state whether they will take drugs because they can better judge what's in their own interests, or it might be argued that the prohibition is inefficient even if the state knows best what is in drug users interests. This second reason is powerful, as evidenced by all the discussion above regarding incarcaration costs, violent crime associated with the illegal markets, etc.
There are non-consequentialist anti-paternalistic arguments. Basically, they maintain that even if things would improve all things considered the state has no right to coerce people not to take drugs. People have a right to decide what they want to do with their bodies even if it is suboptimal. This kind of point is often made when it comes to people's decisions to have relationships that seem obviously bad, do things like mountain climb or sky dive, eat unhealthy foods, or whatever, where it's clear that there are choices with a greater expected value for the person, but which the person rejects. In any event, this is the type of non-consequentialist reason brought to bear. People have a right to engage in the self-affecting behavior of their choice even when it is clearly suboptimal, or even outright bad.
Guns are not quite the same thing. The consequentialist arguments are similiar in many ways, but different in important respects too. I won't rehash them here. But non-consequentialist arguments, if there are in fact any such, are very different. For one thing, restrictions on guns are not primarily argued for on paternalistic grounds. They're argued for on the grounds that a legitimate market in guns aids criminals in their acquisition of the means of injury and murder, in one way or another. So, this puts them under the heading of restrictions enacted to prevent harm to others, not paternalist restrictions. Granted, the harm in question is indirect. Proponents of restriction would say that the harm a gun owner causes by buying a gun is the small contribution to the market which the criminal is a parasite on, either through theft of legal guns, or fake purchases, or legal purchases for nefarious ends, or whatever. In this way it's something like the harm of dumping a small amount of carcinogen into the water, in that by itself it's no big deal but combined with the actions of others it's very harmful. But still, it's an activity which contributes to harm to others and so on that basis should be restricted, they would say.
So, the non-consequentialist anti-paternalistic arguments against drug prohibition are not direcly applicable here. Whatever non-consequentialist argument one would give must be of another sort. One possibility, of course, is that _even if_ it made things worse the state has no right to interfere with a person's right of self-defense. That is, much as some civil libertarians argue that we have rights against search and seizure which should be respected even if their disregard would reduce crime some amount in the long run, so too do some gun rights advocates argue that we have rights of self-defense which the state should not infringe through gun restrictions even if that would reduce violence by some measurable amount.
There are questions associated with this sort of argument. Is the restriction on the use of particular weapon an infringement on the right of _self defense_ if defense is still permitted under the law? Is that right the sort that should be considered to have significant non-consequentialist weight? Etc.
I don't mean to get into these issues here. I think they're tricky but interesting. I just point them out to show that in considering the difference between the drug prohibitions and gun laws different principles will be at stake from a non-consequentialist's perspective.
That's what I have to add on this topic.
There are, broadly speaking, two sorts of reasons to bring to bear on this comparison. One sort is consequentialist, which is to say reasons having to do with how well off people will be (or not) as result of either policy. The second are, unsurprisingly, non-consequentialist, which can appeal to a range of factors but here will mainly appeal to the rights of individuals.
Now, yes, rights of individuals legally speaking are often justified morally on consequentialist grounds, but I'm going to ignore that for the time being. I'm going to assume that a right is a (defeasible) reason to place against the claim that things would be better all things considered if some action were done. That will just make things simpler.
When it comes to drugs, the prohibitions are paternalistic in nature. Paternalism here will just mean restrictions on people for their own good. Paternalism might be challenged on consequentialist grounds. It might be argued that people are all things considered better off if they can decide rather than the state whether they will take drugs because they can better judge what's in their own interests, or it might be argued that the prohibition is inefficient even if the state knows best what is in drug users interests. This second reason is powerful, as evidenced by all the discussion above regarding incarcaration costs, violent crime associated with the illegal markets, etc.
There are non-consequentialist anti-paternalistic arguments. Basically, they maintain that even if things would improve all things considered the state has no right to coerce people not to take drugs. People have a right to decide what they want to do with their bodies even if it is suboptimal. This kind of point is often made when it comes to people's decisions to have relationships that seem obviously bad, do things like mountain climb or sky dive, eat unhealthy foods, or whatever, where it's clear that there are choices with a greater expected value for the person, but which the person rejects. In any event, this is the type of non-consequentialist reason brought to bear. People have a right to engage in the self-affecting behavior of their choice even when it is clearly suboptimal, or even outright bad.
Guns are not quite the same thing. The consequentialist arguments are similiar in many ways, but different in important respects too. I won't rehash them here. But non-consequentialist arguments, if there are in fact any such, are very different. For one thing, restrictions on guns are not primarily argued for on paternalistic grounds. They're argued for on the grounds that a legitimate market in guns aids criminals in their acquisition of the means of injury and murder, in one way or another. So, this puts them under the heading of restrictions enacted to prevent harm to others, not paternalist restrictions. Granted, the harm in question is indirect. Proponents of restriction would say that the harm a gun owner causes by buying a gun is the small contribution to the market which the criminal is a parasite on, either through theft of legal guns, or fake purchases, or legal purchases for nefarious ends, or whatever. In this way it's something like the harm of dumping a small amount of carcinogen into the water, in that by itself it's no big deal but combined with the actions of others it's very harmful. But still, it's an activity which contributes to harm to others and so on that basis should be restricted, they would say.
So, the non-consequentialist anti-paternalistic arguments against drug prohibition are not direcly applicable here. Whatever non-consequentialist argument one would give must be of another sort. One possibility, of course, is that _even if_ it made things worse the state has no right to interfere with a person's right of self-defense. That is, much as some civil libertarians argue that we have rights against search and seizure which should be respected even if their disregard would reduce crime some amount in the long run, so too do some gun rights advocates argue that we have rights of self-defense which the state should not infringe through gun restrictions even if that would reduce violence by some measurable amount.
There are questions associated with this sort of argument. Is the restriction on the use of particular weapon an infringement on the right of _self defense_ if defense is still permitted under the law? Is that right the sort that should be considered to have significant non-consequentialist weight? Etc.
I don't mean to get into these issues here. I think they're tricky but interesting. I just point them out to show that in considering the difference between the drug prohibitions and gun laws different principles will be at stake from a non-consequentialist's perspective.
That's what I have to add on this topic.
Brett Bellmore
New member
Pate: Flip that around; There may be no explicit constitutional right to use drugs, but neither is there any delegated constitutional AUTHORITY for the federal government to tell us we can't use drugs. And as we all know, the federal government has authority ONLY in those areas where the Constitution GIVES it authority. For the FEDERAL government, the war on drugs is unconstitutional; At the state level it's "merely" stupid and/or evil.
The problem with drug legalization, as I see it, is that the war on drugs has caused so much damage, so many deaths, that the advocates CAN'T admit that it's a mistake! As long as they're fighting the war, they can blame all the damage on the "enemy", but if they ever admit it was a mistake, in that moment they're admitting that THEY were the cause of the problems. As that's a load of guilt they couldn't bear, very few drug warriors will ever admit they're wrong. For psychological reasons, they MUST respond to every set-back by escalating the war!
On the bright side, there really aren't THAT many committed drug warriors; If the public ever gets sick and tired of this "war", it can be ended, and the drug wariors can be left to rave on in frustrated impotence.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
The problem with drug legalization, as I see it, is that the war on drugs has caused so much damage, so many deaths, that the advocates CAN'T admit that it's a mistake! As long as they're fighting the war, they can blame all the damage on the "enemy", but if they ever admit it was a mistake, in that moment they're admitting that THEY were the cause of the problems. As that's a load of guilt they couldn't bear, very few drug warriors will ever admit they're wrong. For psychological reasons, they MUST respond to every set-back by escalating the war!
On the bright side, there really aren't THAT many committed drug warriors; If the public ever gets sick and tired of this "war", it can be ended, and the drug wariors can be left to rave on in frustrated impotence.
------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Very nice guys. I'm impressed!
But I feel too stupid today to say anything clever.
Happy 4th! Going to the movies.
But I feel too stupid today to say anything clever.
Happy 4th! Going to the movies.
Has anyone ever known of a junkie who stopped doing drugs just because they are illegal? People do drugs when they want to, if they want to. They are everywhere and they produce a dangerous black market.
Drugs are here to stay whether we like it or not. No amount of restricitions will change this. In Texas, the state will kill you for commiting murder, people still commit murders.
Legalize it and use the proceeds to pay for prescriptions for the elderly or something. If you want to use drugs, fine, just be responsible for your actions. The war on drugs is not working at anything except depriving people of their rights.
------------------
Beware the three D's: The dumb, drunk, and deranged. Chadintex@hotmail.com
Drugs are here to stay whether we like it or not. No amount of restricitions will change this. In Texas, the state will kill you for commiting murder, people still commit murders.
Legalize it and use the proceeds to pay for prescriptions for the elderly or something. If you want to use drugs, fine, just be responsible for your actions. The war on drugs is not working at anything except depriving people of their rights.
------------------
Beware the three D's: The dumb, drunk, and deranged. Chadintex@hotmail.com
Well I have been thinking about this and reading everyone's posts who are for the legalized drugs. So,ok, I am for it.I can learn new tricks.
Now all drugs must be legal. Anything that will get you high must be legal, from the lightist to the hardest, right? Daterape too.
It must be this way or we will still have the same problems, gangs,mafia,pressure of our rights,no-knock-raids killing gramps in his bed,ect.
Oops, now the Gummint must step in, right?
We now have the BATF&D(D is for dope)so they can reg-u-late the stuff, like they do all the A,T and F,right?
Well now, to finance the D-part we must tax the dope,yes? Some sort of sin-tax? Dope will need to have the same sin tax that the A and T have,plus more 'cause it is very bad.
The need for more BATF&D guys will be needed, well they say more are needed but who really knows,right,but you got your dope so who really gives a damn.
Now then the goverment must have quality control on the dope,right? I guess this is the FDA's thing. More taxes will be needed to finance more gummint people so test can be run on the dope. If people die from bad dope the people will cry out for the gummint to do something about it,yes?Gots'to have good dope.
What about home grown dope,MJ and poppies,well let me tell you the USDA will have some input on those commodities. I can see it now. The Chicago Board of Trade has now opened dope futures,poppies and weed.
It just don't get any better! I am so excited!
OBTW more taxes for more USDA guys.
What if the countries that import the dope undercut our farmers,should the tax payer subsidize the dope farmers? Hell yeah! We gota' have our dope!
Well ,with all of the taxes and tariff's don't you think that blackmarket dope will be cheaper? Will there still be a war on this kind on dope, just like on moonshine.Will our rights still be in trouble? Will there still be gun fights over cheap dope and turf?
Do you think the criminals that profit from dope will let go of all that money?They don't want to pay taxes.
Who gives a damn,we got dope!
Stay high,I mean safe.
John
[This message has been edited by JHS (edited July 05, 2000).]
Now all drugs must be legal. Anything that will get you high must be legal, from the lightist to the hardest, right? Daterape too.
It must be this way or we will still have the same problems, gangs,mafia,pressure of our rights,no-knock-raids killing gramps in his bed,ect.
Oops, now the Gummint must step in, right?
We now have the BATF&D(D is for dope)so they can reg-u-late the stuff, like they do all the A,T and F,right?
Well now, to finance the D-part we must tax the dope,yes? Some sort of sin-tax? Dope will need to have the same sin tax that the A and T have,plus more 'cause it is very bad.
The need for more BATF&D guys will be needed, well they say more are needed but who really knows,right,but you got your dope so who really gives a damn.
Now then the goverment must have quality control on the dope,right? I guess this is the FDA's thing. More taxes will be needed to finance more gummint people so test can be run on the dope. If people die from bad dope the people will cry out for the gummint to do something about it,yes?Gots'to have good dope.
What about home grown dope,MJ and poppies,well let me tell you the USDA will have some input on those commodities. I can see it now. The Chicago Board of Trade has now opened dope futures,poppies and weed.
It just don't get any better! I am so excited!
OBTW more taxes for more USDA guys.
What if the countries that import the dope undercut our farmers,should the tax payer subsidize the dope farmers? Hell yeah! We gota' have our dope!
Well ,with all of the taxes and tariff's don't you think that blackmarket dope will be cheaper? Will there still be a war on this kind on dope, just like on moonshine.Will our rights still be in trouble? Will there still be gun fights over cheap dope and turf?
Do you think the criminals that profit from dope will let go of all that money?They don't want to pay taxes.
Who gives a damn,we got dope!
Stay high,I mean safe.
John
[This message has been edited by JHS (edited July 05, 2000).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brett Bellmore:
The problem with drug legalization, as I see it, is that the war on drugs has caused so much damage, so many deaths, that the advocates CAN'T admit that it's a mistake! As long as they're fighting the war, they can blame all the damage on the "enemy", but if they ever admit it was a mistake, in that moment they're admitting that THEY were the cause of the problems. As that's a load of guilt they couldn't bear, very few drug warriors will ever admit they're wrong. For psychological reasons, they MUST respond to every set-back by escalating the war![/quote]
Can you say, "More Guns, Less Crime: Second Edition" ???
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
The problem with drug legalization, as I see it, is that the war on drugs has caused so much damage, so many deaths, that the advocates CAN'T admit that it's a mistake! As long as they're fighting the war, they can blame all the damage on the "enemy", but if they ever admit it was a mistake, in that moment they're admitting that THEY were the cause of the problems. As that's a load of guilt they couldn't bear, very few drug warriors will ever admit they're wrong. For psychological reasons, they MUST respond to every set-back by escalating the war![/quote]
Can you say, "More Guns, Less Crime: Second Edition" ???
------------------
~USP
"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
David Roberson
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JHS:
Now all drugs must be legal. Anything that will get you high must be legal, from the lightist to the hardest, right? Daterape too.[/quote]
If you mean the so-called "date rape" drugs should be legal, yes, you're right. However, the legality of drugs does not also make it legal to give those drugs to to someone without his or her consent.
This isn't a hard concept, people: Your freedom of choice extends to yourself. Other people get to make their own choices.
Now all drugs must be legal. Anything that will get you high must be legal, from the lightist to the hardest, right? Daterape too.[/quote]
If you mean the so-called "date rape" drugs should be legal, yes, you're right. However, the legality of drugs does not also make it legal to give those drugs to to someone without his or her consent.
This isn't a hard concept, people: Your freedom of choice extends to yourself. Other people get to make their own choices.