• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Something I noticed

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.

:lol: Whew <<<<< wipes swet from brow. I am pro gun and pro weed. Even got to know Mary Jane really well. :mrgreen:



:2razz:
 
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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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 disagree. Marijuana smokers are perfectly capable of contributing to society and probably more so than alcoholics...or worse...alcoholics with guns.
 
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.

remind me where the federal government obtained the power to ban weed.
 
I disagree. Marijuana smokers are perfectly capable of contributing to society and probably more so than alcoholics...or worse...alcoholics with guns.

far worse are drunk gun haters
 
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. ;)
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.
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.
No one is arguing legal marijuana shouldn't have red tape. There's a lot of red tape associated with firearms as well.
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.
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 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.
There are many gaps between the rich and poor.

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.
As you said earlier, you can't kill someone with weed.
 
Fail. Drivers on MJ kill people. Including my brother.


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.

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.
 
Fail. Drivers on MJ kill people. Including my brother.

In your example, the car was the weapon. The person did not die because of the weed, they died because of an impact with an automobile. Sorry, but people can misuse a gun also, and blaming it on the drug is a bad excuse. The reality is responsible drug use involves not being in a position to operate a vehicle, or a gun.
 
I know that everyone's thoughts are with you. Your pain is ever-lasting and not hypothetical. As a retired chemistry/physics teacher, I am still pained by all of the students I lost over the years in all of the ways. It hurts like no other. My students' parents still write me. They have started a group for older teens in our town.

For now, MJ in the blood when one is driving must remain illegal, when there is an accident, until more tests are done. If people are going to smoke, they must not drive, for themselves and especially others they may harm. There is no agreed upon level in the blood, though CO has done much testing. Everyday users wake up with about 10 nanograms of THC per deciliter of blood.

Studies I am aware of speak of MJ having a half-life of 30 minutes, with at least 4 half-lives needed for safe driving, not taking into account the strength. With controlled MJ growing and "safe" MJ pharmacies in these two states and medical MJ in about 20 other states, hopefully there will be no more tragedies.

I say these things for anyone out there listening who thinks they can smoke and drive. Think Russian Roulette. A new concern of mine is "Kush" and its combination with ecstacy. As a high school graduate in 1971, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to grow up today with all of the tech toys and partying.
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 make a good point, but it doesn't apply to the OP because you are changing the original premise.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.

Good post TR.....although, I would remind you of those that do fall off into Battle Rage and blood lust. Which does affect one's mental state, leaving them not so much into a mode of thinking.
 
I support the repealing of the NFA and the GCA along with the repealing of the USNA and the Marijuana Tax Act.
 
remind me where the federal government obtained the power to ban weed.

When the lumber industry successfully campaigned them to ban it.
 
Iam a big supporter of 2A rights.
I also support the laws governing weed in this country.
But, I try to be alittle open minded about it and if weed became legal. I doubt I would lose much sleep over it.
And seeing as I dont smoke weed, or anything else. OK a good Cohiba couple times a year.
But I have seen, weed smokers that allowed weed to kinda take over their lives some times lead to harder drugs and not be able to get better jobs.
 
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.
The OP wasn't meant to apply to all situations.


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.
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.)




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.
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.



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 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.

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.
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.
 
Last edited:
This is why I joined the Guns N' Dope Party. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom