sbrettt
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2013
- Messages
- 2,724
- Reaction score
- 783
- Location
- Prospect park, PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
You can't support banning weapons, and legalizing recreational marijuana without being a hypocrite, because two of the same issues apply to the prohibition of drugs, and banning firearms. First of all, a commonly used argument for keeping marijuana illegal is that some people abuse it and don't contribute to society. They're basically punishing responsible smokers for the actions of irresponsible smokers. If you support gun control you're doing the same thing, because there are responsible gun owners out there. Furthermore, we've all heard pro legalization folks (like myself) make the point that when you prohibit something that has demand, (There is large demand for weed, and guns in the US.), an underground economy will meet that demand, so people will still get their hands on it. This also applies to people who don't support banning guns, but do support the prohibition of marijuana.
I know there are many people who don't fall into this category, no need to point yourself out.
You can't support banning weapons, and legalizing recreational marijuana without being a hypocrite, because two of the same issues apply to the prohibition of drugs, and banning firearms. First of all, a commonly used argument for keeping marijuana illegal is that some people abuse it and don't contribute to society. They're basically punishing responsible smokers for the actions of irresponsible smokers. If you support gun control you're doing the same thing, because there are responsible gun owners out there. Furthermore, we've all heard pro legalization folks (like myself) make the point that when you prohibit something that has demand, (There is large demand for weed, and guns in the US.), an underground economy will meet that demand, so people will still get their hands on it. This also applies to people who don't support banning guns, but do support the prohibition of marijuana.
I know there are many people who don't fall into this category, no need to point yourself out.
You can't support banning weapons, and legalizing recreational marijuana without being a hypocrite, because two of the same issues apply to the prohibition of drugs, and banning firearms. First of all, a commonly used argument for keeping marijuana illegal is that some people abuse it and don't contribute to society. They're basically punishing responsible smokers for the actions of irresponsible smokers. If you support gun control you're doing the same thing, because there are responsible gun owners out there. Furthermore, we've all heard pro legalization folks (like myself) make the point that when you prohibit something that has demand, (There is large demand for weed, and guns in the US.), an underground economy will meet that demand, so people will still get their hands on it. This also applies to people who don't support banning guns, but do support the prohibition of marijuana.
I know there are many people who don't fall into this category, no need to point yourself out.
However I support gun rights and not legalizing MJ. We already kill enough people each year with intoxicated driving we don't need more high drivers too.
I disagree. Marijuana smokers are perfectly capable of contributing to society and probably more so than alcoholics...or worse...alcoholics with guns.
That's where punishing a responsible majority for the actions of a minority comes in. Most gun owners don't participate in drive by shootings. Most supervise their kids when they're handling weapons, and are careful handling weapons. I agree there are differences. Marijuana isn't a weapon.While I am for the legalization of recreational drugs and for complete 2A rights there are notable differences, as well as your noted similarities. You cannot accidentally kill yourself as a small child by getting hold of a plant, even very potent marijuana. You can't rob a store or bring down a person in a drive by using a bag of weed. Comparing a "powerful" plant to a lethal weapon is not the world's best analogy. Try defending yourself, your property or your family with a bag of weed.
No one is arguing legal marijuana shouldn't have red tape. There's a lot of red tape associated with firearms as well.Then there is the constitutional rights issue. The right to keep and bear arms is specifically protected, while the right to use recreational intoxicants is, at best, implied and selling them, as we see with alcohol, involves incredible gov't imposed red tape and high taxation.
Yes they're both banned in many states, but prohibition doesn't work. Guns are already shipped up here illegally, and I believe those suppliers will step up to meet any additional demand created by the banning of any weapons currently legal.The sales of either guns or recreational drugs are tightly regulated (or banned) by both federal and state laws. This is where the gun rights proponents have stumbled for not keeping a lid on the gov'ts constant "mission creep" in placing "sin" taxes, registration or record keeping fees, "special" rights rental permits (after completing rights "training" courses) and now introducing a sporadic checkerboard of state and local laws making guns all but completely banned in many areas.
There are many gaps between the rich and poor.The rich, naturally, can surmount nearly any legal obstacle, thus have always had the ability to get and carry the best guns and dope - but, unlike the legalize marijuana movement, you will be arrested, jailed and banned from ever legally carrying a gun if you (without sufficient money to get top notch legal help) tried a "carry in" or even get caught with a gun, completely legally purchased but carried without a "proper" permit, in the "roper" manner or carried into a "gun free" zone.
As you said earlier, you can't kill someone with weed.The best thing about legalized marijuana is that all free adult Americans, even convicted felons (upon release), can enjoy that "right" but never likely regain their basic individual constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
That's where punishing a responsible majority for the actions of a minority comes in. Most gun owners don't participate in drive by shootings. Most supervise their kids when they're handling weapons, and are careful handling weapons. I agree there are differences. Marijuana isn't a weapon.
No one is arguing legal marijuana shouldn't have red tape. There's a lot of red tape associated with firearms as well.
Yes they're both banned in many states, but prohibition doesn't work. Guns are already shipped up here illegally, and I believe those suppliers will step up to meet any additional demand created by the banning of any weapons currently legal.
There are many gaps between the rich and poor.
As you said earlier, you can't kill someone with weed.
You can't support banning weapons, and legalizing recreational marijuana without being a hypocrite, because two of the same issues apply to the prohibition of drugs, and banning firearms. First of all, a commonly used argument for keeping marijuana illegal is that some people abuse it and don't contribute to society. They're basically punishing responsible smokers for the actions of irresponsible smokers. If you support gun control you're doing the same thing, because there are responsible gun owners out there. Furthermore, we've all heard pro legalization folks (like myself) make the point that when you prohibit something that has demand, (There is large demand for weed, and guns in the US.), an underground economy will meet that demand, so people will still get their hands on it. This also applies to people who don't support banning guns, but do support the prohibition of marijuana.
I know there are many people who don't fall into this category, no need to point yourself out.
Fail. Drivers on MJ kill people. Including my brother.
Fail. Drivers on MJ kill people. Including my brother.
Fail. Drivers on MJ kill people. Including my brother.
I would put it more along the lines of legalizing all guns in all cases and legalizing all drugs in all cases. Just like drugs certain weapons have a much larger danger than others. Still, in the hands of a responsible person the most dangerous of them can be pretty safe. Also, in the hands of the wrong people even the safest of those items would be dangerous. This is why we have a variable line. This is why very few people support complete legalization in both areas, and the people who do are often seen as a bit loopy.
I am actually fine with saying things like pump or bolt action riffles with limited capacity are pretty safe in relation to destructive capabilities of other weapons. Sort of like how pot is pretty safe compared to other drugs. Abuse of these items becomes limited due to their limited nature. Then you have your mid levels stuff like cocaine which I would put somewhere in the area of a handgun or assault weapon. In the hands of a responsible person who handles things safely and responsibly not too dangerous, but if given to a person prone to making bad decisions you can get some damage. Then you have things like PCP and heroin which are probably like large calliber full autos, grenades, or stuff like that. The risk of damage to a person from misuse is much higher, there is a huge risk if someone goes off the reservation with these things, and a people may not want to deal with that risk.
There are two things which should be noted here. Drugs are inherently more risky to the person using them while guns are more risky to others. Guns do not alter a person's mental state to the effect that drugs do. There may be some attitude changes with guns, but drugs are a much more powerful device for changing how someone thinks. It does make the comparisons separate. One could feel that because drugs alter a person to the point where they are out of control that they are worse than drugs, and they would have a valid argument. One could also feel that due to the danger to others and not the user guns are worse than drugs because a drug user assumes the risk on themselves mostly while a gun brings much higher risks to others. So the idea that one could argue two separate points of view on these items is not accurate because guns and drugs are not the same in nature or purpose.
You make a good point, but it doesn't apply to the OP because you are changing the original premise.
You can't support banning weapons, and legalizing recreational marijuana without being a hypocrite, because two of the same issues apply to the prohibition of drugs, and banning firearms.
First of all, a commonly used argument for keeping marijuana illegal is that some people abuse it and don't contribute to society. They're basically punishing responsible smokers for the actions of irresponsible smokers. If you support gun control you're doing the same thing, because there are responsible gun owners out there.
Furthermore, we've all heard pro legalization folks (like myself) make the point that when you prohibit something that has demand, (There is large demand for weed, and guns in the US.), an underground economy will meet that demand, so people will still get their hands on it. This also applies to people who don't support banning guns, but do support the prohibition of marijuana.
I know there are many people who don't fall into this category, no need to point yourself out.
I would put it more along the lines of legalizing all guns in all cases and legalizing all drugs in all cases. Just like drugs certain weapons have a much larger danger than others. Still, in the hands of a responsible person the most dangerous of them can be pretty safe. Also, in the hands of the wrong people even the safest of those items would be dangerous. This is why we have a variable line. This is why very few people support complete legalization in both areas, and the people who do are often seen as a bit loopy.
I am actually fine with saying things like pump or bolt action riffles with limited capacity are pretty safe in relation to destructive capabilities of other weapons. Sort of like how pot is pretty safe compared to other drugs. Abuse of these items becomes limited due to their limited nature. Then you have your mid levels stuff like cocaine which I would put somewhere in the area of a handgun or assault weapon. In the hands of a responsible person who handles things safely and responsibly not too dangerous, but if given to a person prone to making bad decisions you can get some damage. Then you have things like PCP and heroin which are probably like large calliber full autos, grenades, or stuff like that. The risk of damage to a person from misuse is much higher, there is a huge risk if someone goes off the reservation with these things, and a people may not want to deal with that risk.
There are two things which should be noted here. Drugs are inherently more risky to the person using them while guns are more risky to others. Guns do not alter a person's mental state to the effect that drugs do. There may be some attitude changes with guns, but drugs are a much more powerful device for changing how someone thinks. It does make the comparisons separate. One could feel that because drugs alter a person to the point where they are out of control that they are worse than drugs, and they would have a valid argument. One could also feel that due to the danger to others and not the user guns are worse than drugs because a drug user assumes the risk on themselves mostly while a gun brings much higher risks to others. So the idea that one could argue two separate points of view on these items is not accurate because guns and drugs are not the same in nature or purpose.
remind me where the federal government obtained the power to ban weed.
Fail. Drivers on MJ kill people. Including my brother.
The OP wasn't meant to apply to all situations.Since you really want to go there, let me. BTW I am sure you will fail to note after this that I was pretty reasonable until you wanted this unreasonable argument because the OP was flawed.
They can both be deadly in different senses. (I'll broaden out to all drugs as well.) I agree with you, weapons are different than drugs, but not much different. Some such as alcohol, opiates, ect. can kill directly by OD. Pot, and other drugs can also kill indirectly when the user is irresponsible, say with their car, or with certain jobs. In fact, you've pointed me to other similarities between guns and drugs. I know this is very broad, but they both directly or indirectly kill. You have either the violent criminal, or the irresponsible user. The violent criminal will kill someone else on purpose, and I acknowledge this is a major difference between the two. They're not the exact same, but on the other hand with firearms, you have the irresponsible user, who will either kill themselves by mistake, or on purpose. Another similarity is drugs are also used in suicide. Quoting the CDC, 2005-2007 "Poisoning is a leading method in suicide deaths, and drugs and/or alcohol make up 75% of suicide deaths due to poisoning.)Actually, you can because drugs are not guns. Pot is not a gun. You can use pot all you want and a dangerous projectile does not inherently have to leave your body. When you use a gun a deadly object comes out. That is just what it does. Some comparing the two is going to get you into trouble when you want to get all specific and technical.
Someone can also use pot recklessly while driving or operating heavy machinery and kill someone. You've made me think of another parallel, both weapons and medicinal marijuana are used against outside threats, and inside threats. With pot, it's in the form of an illness. With weapons, it's in the form of someone trying to hurt you or others around you.Yes, but your argument neglects a huge difference. Pot has purposes far outside of killing people or causing damage. A gun is not medicinal. A gun does not make one feel groovy. A gun is not a mind altering substance. A gun kills or does damage to something. That is it's purpose. I can use pot as recklessly as possible in front of you and you are never in danger. If I use a gurn recklessly around you then you could be shot.
I strongly disagree. Guns serve the purpose of defending life. I agree less often now than in the past, but they still do. Here's what I think is the last additional similarity. People use both to better their lives in different ways. With guns it's security, and recreation. With weed, it's relaxation, and perspective. (That's only my opinion, I'm sure it's different for some people.) They both can also worse peoples lives. Firearms do in obvious way, weed does in subtle ways like an irresponsible parent, but not all are irresponsible. It can also with irresponsible drivers, but not all smokers drive when they're high. Lastly, most gun owners don't hurt anyone with their guns just as most smokers don't hurt anyone smoking.Again, seems to be a bit false. Look at placers who have banned drugs and guns. Drugs remain in those places, where some have made huge strides in removing guns. Why is this? because guns do not serve a huge purpose in life anymore, where drugs do. Drugs are recreational and make people happy. Guns are there to kill. If you do not want to kill someone a gun becomes a bit pointless.
I agree both issues can have different implications, but I think I have shown above they also have many similar implications. In the case of suicide, they have the exact same implication.It is a bad argument to say you cannot argue one without the other. Simply their purpose and uses are different which makes them separate issues which can be argues separately. Since that is all you want to discuss it would seem you are pretty much wrong. next time perhaps you want to be reasonable instead of looking for a pat on the back.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?