Bad Things are Bad.

[TheReasoner]

Why should cannabis be illegal and alcohol not?

I can see no possible argument in favour of such a situation. The only way I can even make sense of it is so to assume that people in general are brainwashed into alcohol is not a drug. You cannot argue against making drugs (specifically cannabis I don't want to get into the other ones) legal if you accept that it is okay for drink to be legal. Alcohol is a drug.

If you compare the two on a level playing field alcohol is worse. You don't hear of people getting cannabis-poisoning and dying. You don't have emergency rooms clogged up on weekends due to rowdy stoners.

because the effects of one joint lasts longer than the effects of a drink.
A real high dulls your mind for a couple of days. And as mankind progresses the most important thing we have is our minds. Plus, small amounts of alcohol is healthy. Cannabis - in any amount - is not. Least of all when smoked. I know there is a lot of propaganda saying it is about as bad as coffee. Sadly, I don't have the material anymore. But after arranging several courses for soldiers when I was in the army, along with the military police, my position has become firm. Oh, I know Cannabis is relatively benign. But it's not healthy, and the fairly long lasting effects makes it something I don't want legalized. What's more, where it comes from is not likely to change. So the money would still go to criminals in other nations.

[edit] As for guns, what I have stated on here is my opinion. Not any fact I can confirm or denounce with facts. Just my express opinion.

 

[Maxwell511]

because the effects of one joint lasts longer than the effects of a drink.
A real high dulls your mind for a couple of days. And as mankind progresses the most important thing we have is our minds. Plus, small amounts of alcohol is healthy. Cannabis - in any amount - is not. Least of all when smoked. I know there is a lot of propaganda saying it is about as bad as coffee. Sadly, I don't have the material anymore. But after arranging several courses for soldiers when I was in the army, along with the military police, my position has become firm. Oh, I know Cannabis is relatively benign. But it's not healthy, and the fairly long lasting effects makes it something I don't want legalized. What's more, where it comes from is not likely to change. So the money would still go to criminals in other nations.

So the reason for its illegalisation is that it dulls the mind temporarily?

If we are concerned about the effect that the drug has on someone temporarily achieving their potential, how does limiting their career prospects permanently by giving them a criminal record help?

Personally I think that laws such as the one in the US that denies federal student aid to kids convicted of possession has more of a dulling effect on a person's mind than the drug itself.

 

[Deadbolt]

Hey! Guns! I like guns.... Personally I think guns should be completely unregulated and everyone should carry and know how to use them, the upside to this being that if you were to pull out a gun in a bank or a school or a shopping mall you might as well jut put it to you own head and be done with it because by the time you can even squeeze off a single shot you're going to have gained twice your normal weight in lead.
And for clarification, in the OP I was playing Devil's Advocate for a view which I consider to to be naive in the extreme. The world is a dangerous place, more laws won't make it any safer and they certainly won't make you any freer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What greater good would be served by such a right?

Irrelevant. The poster was arguing that his right to bear arms should be maintained by virtue of its constitutionality. I was making the point that, just because something is in the constitution, doens't make it an absolute truth that must never ever be tampered with.

Naturally, editing the constitution shouldn't be taken lightly, but I think it's safe to assume that the British Empire won't be coming to retake the Colonies any time soon. You can disband the militia.

I ask because while the right to bear arms obviously has it's downside, the things that the previous poster cites makes it on the net, a good thing that is necessary to preserve essential freedoms.

And my point was that one should not have a freedom soley because it is a freedom. That's why I made the above point: where's my constitutional right to rape underage girls? Without it, you're infringing on my freedoms!

But getting sort of back to the original post, even if one does see the guns themself as where the bad lies(a point I disagree with) how does making them illegal solve anything?

It doesn't. Read my first post.

The OP talked about the ineffectiveness of banning drugs or alcohol or any number of other things. How would eliminating guns even begin to address the fact that some people want to kill other people and how would it stop them from doing so? If you want to try to solve the problem of violence by banning the tool used you're going to have to ban a lot more than guns.

Since that is not what I want to do, your point is moot.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Getting rid of guns only lowers gun violence. Of course fewer guns means fewer GUN deaths. But does it necessarily mean fewer TOTAL deaths?

Then I repeat my request: demonstrate how increased gun control leads to increased deaths.

And looking at your list of countries, Canada has a HIGHER per capita gun ownership than the US so clearly fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths is not always true. There's something else in play that the elimination of guns clearly won't address.

My point was parodical: I used the UK as a disproof by counterexample of your usage of Canada. Tit for tat, as it were.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Are you serious? I bolded the fact that it is my right but didn't even use that as an argument. If you'll note the actual post, you'll see what my argument is.

You post:

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England."

"One cannot have a right to life without the right to defend it with deadly force."
- Bruce Montague

Honestly, I would never willingly give up my right to bear arms. Though our country may be great, it is not permanent. So often the general populace has been required to step in to correct their government's misdeeds, and I doubt seriously that my government will never require such a correction in the future.

As far as I can tell, your entire argument is based around the fact that it is your right to bear arms.

"I would never willingly give up my right to bear arms".

"One cannot have a right to life without the right to defend it with deadly force".

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature;".

I stand by my statement.

 

[reverend B]

because the effects of one joint lasts longer than the effects of a drink.
A real high dulls your mind for a couple of days. And as mankind progresses the most important thing we have is our minds. Plus, small amounts of alcohol is healthy. Cannabis - in any amount - is not. Least of all when smoked. I know there is a lot of propaganda saying it is about as bad as coffee. Sadly, I don't have the material anymore. But after arranging several courses for soldiers when I was in the army, along with the military police, my position has become firm. Oh, I know Cannabis is relatively benign. But it's not healthy, and the fairly long lasting effects makes it something I don't want legalized. What's more, where it comes from is not likely to change. So the money would still go to criminals in other nations.

[edit] As for guns, what I have stated on here is my opinion. Not any fact I can confirm or denounce with facts. Just my express opinion.

i think much of your education regarding marijuana has been propoganda. the evidence for the physically disabling properties of alcohol are incontrovertible, and having done both as a younger man, comparing getting really stoned and really drunk and how it makes you feel over the next couple of days is a slam drunk! alcohol is worse by a landslide.
we have created a criminal class by making this weed illegal, and this includes the end user and the entire supply chain. our war (laws) against weed has done nothing in the long haul to eradicate its use. to imagine that legalizing it with federal controls, like with alcohol or tobacco, would allow international trafficking to go on unabated is silly. much too much tax money could be collected, a new industry begun and the incentive to get it illegally would simply disappear. the crime part of the equation would simply dry up and blow away. there is no scirhosis of the munchie ducts. there is no anecdotal evidence that people go on stoner rages and beat their wives. the negative influence of alcohol is so widespread and obvious it boggles the addled minds, but its use is so widespread there is much resistance to control it, and when eliminating it was tried, it simply made criminals of everyone, including the people charged with upholding laws that they frequently broke after walking their beat, drinking free in their local speakeasy.
to make this medicine go down a little easier, i used to be a big gun control supporter, but find it useless now. those who choose to use one illegally will obtain one in the same way.
there is a great book called "ain't nobodies business if i do..." that talks about the absurdity of consensual crime. i recommend it to everyone that had enough interest in this thread to post on it.

 

[Parmenio]

You post:

As far as I can tell, your entire argument is based around the fact that it is your right to bear arms.

"I would never willingly give up my right to bear arms".

"One cannot have a right to life without the right to defend it with deadly force".

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature;".

I stand by my statement.

To be honest, it appears you just bolded the word "right" wherever you found it and argued against that. If you'll take the quotes in full context what the post actually says is that the populace should be armed to protect it against it's own government. Not simply because it is a right granted in the Constitution, but because of the reason it was put into the Constitution.

You argue that the UK is not likely to invade the US anytime soon, I counter with the fact that two centuries are not all that much in the time span of empire. It has been less than 200 years since bloody armed conflict between the US and the UK, and there is no real reason to believe that it will never happen again, just as there is no reason to believe that the US will be around in any distinguishable form in 300 years.

This right was guaranteed us by the Colonial Rebels to ensure that we could throw off the shackles of the government when it nearly inevitably slid back into despotism.

I would never quote statistics to justify my ownership of several deadly weapons. All I need do is cite history over the ages and my argument is made for me.

 

[Conspiracy Theory]

As far as I can tell, your entire argument is based around the fact that it is your right to bear arms.

"I would never willingly give up my right to bear arms".

"One cannot have a right to life without the right to defend it with deadly force".

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature;".

I stand by my statement.

Where there's a will, there's a weapon.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To be honest, it appears you just bolded the word "right" wherever you found it and argued against that.

Well, yes: I was making a point.
It would be a lot more helpful if you simply clarified your post for me, rather than lambast me for misunderstanding you.

If you'll take the quotes in full context what the post actually says is that the populace should be armed to protect it against it's own government.

If that was the meaning to your original post, then fair enough. As far as I could tell, the latter paragraph:

"Though our country may be great, it is not permanent. So often the general populace has been required to step in to correct their government's misdeeds, and I doubt seriously that my government will never require such a correction in the future."

Appeared to be an argument against changing the Constitution and the foundations of the United States. It was not at all clear that you were talking about physically taking up arms against your own government. If I misunderstood you, you have my apologies.

Not simply because it is a right granted in the Constitution, but because of the reason it was put into the Constitution.

Which was, according to Wikipedia:

"The right to keep and bear arms did not originate fully-formed in the Bill of Rights in 1791; rather, the Second Amendment was the codification of the six centuries old responsibility to keep and bear arms for king and country that was inherited from the English Colonists that settled North America, tracing its origin back to the Assize of Arms of 1181 that occurred during the reign of Henry II."

Given the military might of the US, I find it hard to imagine that a well-armed militia (a Dad's Army, of sorts) will ever be required.

You argue that the UK is not likely to invade the US anytime soon, I counter with the fact that two centuries are not all that much in the time span of empire. It has been less than 200 years since bloody armed conflict between the US and the UK, and there is no real reason to believe that it will never happen again, just as there is no reason to believe that the US will be around in any distinguishable form in 300 years.

I don't see how this is a counter to my point. If anything, it supports it: I argue that the UK won't invade any time soon, and you appear to agree with me.

This right was guaranteed us by the Colonial Rebels to ensure that we could throw off the shackles of the government when it nearly inevitably slid back into despotism.

And you celebrate that event with Independance Day. Like I said, you are not in any real danger of the British Empire sailing to the Americas to reclaim their colonies. The purpose of the the right to bear arms as a Constitutional right no longer exists.

I would never quote statistics to justify my ownership of several deadly weapons.

Yes, God forbid you use actual data rather than rhetoric.

All I need do is cite history over the ages and my argument is made for me.

By all means, go ahead. Of course, this is hedging close to statistical analysis, but I won't tell if you won't .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

because the effects of one joint lasts longer than the effects of a drink.

So?

A real high dulls your mind for a couple of days.

As does a real booze-up. Your point?

Cannabis - in any amount - is not.

On the contrary.

Least of all when smoked.

And therein lies the beauty of vapourisers.

Oh, I know Cannabis is relatively benign. But it's not healthy, and the fairly long lasting effects makes it something I don't want legalized.

But what right does one person have to tell another person what they can or cannot ingest, if such an ingestion has no detrimental effect on society? Indeed, given the plethora of medicinal uses of marijuana and it's stunning un-toxicity, I find it to be a breach of freedoms to continue to restrict its use.

What's more, where it comes from is not likely to change. So the money would still go to criminals in other nations.

How? If the US legalised medical marijuana, it would have to be grown by the US government. I really can't imagine your government doing black market deals with foriegn cartels to get their drugs when they can legally grow it in their own backgarden.

 

[Parmenio]

You seriously believe that the governments of the Western world will never again require a revolt from their people?

I don't care if we're never invaded again. That is not my concern.

You are quite right in asserting that our military might far exceeds any real need that we will ever have. However, I believe that it is my own government that I need to protect myself against, and if not myself, then my descendants. The reason I do not care about the statistics of people shooting one another is that, in my personal opinion, we sacrifice much in the name of freedom and liberty, and sometimes that sacrifice comes in the lives of innocents.

In living in a free society you must accept that you are more at risk than those that live in a more closed society. This is the natural trade-off of freedom.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You seriously believe that the governments of the Western world will never again require a revolt from their people?

Require a revolt?

I don't care if we're never invaded again. That is not my concern.

You are quite right in asserting that our military might far exceeds any real need that we will ever have. However, I believe that it is my own government that I need to protect myself against, and if not myself, then my descendants. The reason I do not care about the statistics of people shooting one another is that, in my personal opinion, we sacrifice much in the name of freedom and liberty, and sometimes that sacrifice comes in the lives of innocents.

In living in a free society you must accept that you are more at risk than those that live in a more closed society. This is the natural trade-off of freedom.

This is all very well and good, but it doesn't establish that you require such lax gun control to achieve the freedoms you desire. As far as I can tell, you want to keep your guns because you think political revolutions are necessarily bloodthirsty and periodically required.

 

[Parmenio]

This is all very well and good, but it doesn't establish that you require such lax gun control to achieve the freedoms you desire. As far as I can tell, you want to keep your guns because you think political revolutions are necessarily bloodthirsty and periodically required.

You misconstrue what I said in this matter. I believe that there is inevitably a time in my Nation's future that will require an armed revolution. The only way this can be achieved is with arms.

I did not say that I believe all political revolutions are necessarily bloody, only that I do not believe that we will never again require bloodshed to secure our freedom.

I do believe this easily establishes the populace's need to remain armed. As without guns and weapons it is nearly impossible to ever usurp the government that has overstepped egregiously.

Do you believe that the governments of today will never be in need of a revolt? Do you believe that if they do require a revolt that it will always be possible to accomplish the goals of the revolution without violence?

Those are the foundational questions for me in my belief that guns may be controlled, but not banned. People have fallen into believing that their country will always be generally benevolent; when it was only 230 years ago that my country fought a bloody and unconventional war to liberate itself from autocracy abroad. Even more recent still was our terrible and bloody Civil War. How now do we believe that we've come so far as human beings that we will never again require the last resort of armed conflict with our government? Is our government that much superior to governments of old? I seriously doubt it. I simply believe people have become complacent and have no real sense that they could ever really be oppressed by the government again. That it only happens to those people over there, and not to us.

That is why I support gun rights.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I believe that there is inevitably a time in my Nation's future that will require an armed revolution.

Why?

The only way this can be achieved is with arms.

Why?

I did not say that I believe all political revolutions are necessarily bloody, only that I do not believe that we will never again require bloodshed to secure our freedom.

To secure it from whom? A hostile invader likely needs to be dealt with with force, but from your own government? I find that hard to believe.

I do believe this easily establishes the populace's need to remain armed.

If there is immanent threat of tyranny, sure. But what reason do you have to think the US government is going to imfringe on your fundamental freedoms?

As without guns and weapons it is nearly impossible to ever usurp the government that has overstepped egregiously.

Indeed: they have guns and you do not. Martial law would be a doddle.

Do you believe that the governments of today will never be in need of a revolt?

Today's governments? Not in the West, no.
Tomorrow? It's a remote possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.

Do you believe that if they do require a revolt that it will always be possible to accomplish the goals of the revolution without violence?

That depends on what goals are to be accomplished. Overthrowing a tyrant? That will almost certainly require deadly force, since only a fool wouldn't have an army in his employ. An overzealous xenophobic democracy? No, but virtue of its democratic system.

Like I said, it depends on what goals you want to accomplish.

Those are the foundational questions for me in my belief that guns may be controlled, but not banned. People have fallen into believing that their country will always be generally benevolent; when it was only 230 years ago that my country fought a bloody and unconventional war to liberate itself from autocracy abroad. Even more recent still was our terrible and bloody Civil War. How now do we believe that we've come so far as human beings that we will never again require the last resort of armed conflict with our government?

Because the major forms of oppression have been eliminated. Previously, only white males of upper-class ancestry had 'decent' freedoms in a system without democracy. Today, few freedoms are infringed upon (there are still prejudices in the law, but these are minor enough to be democratically ironed out).

Unless you're going to start espousing conspiracy theories, your arguments become moot without.

Is our government that much superior to governments of old?

Yes: technological advances have changed the international arena somewhat, wouldn't you say?

 

[Parmenio]

I believe my friend, that we just simply disagree.

My simple point is that based on the history of the civilizations I believe that every government is ephemeral in the scheme of history. Because of this I believe that my country will eventually fade into nothingness in one way or another. When this time comes, I do not expect the government to simply fade away, but to cling for dear life to every ounce of power that it can, and when that happens, I would like to avoid having me or mine caught in the clenched fists of a dying state.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I believe my friend, that we just simply disagree.

My simple point is that based on the history of the civilizations I believe that every government is ephemeral in the scheme of history. Because of this I believe that my country will eventually fade into nothingness in one way or another. When this time comes, I do not expect the government to simply fade away, but to cling for dear life to every ounce of power that it can, and when that happens, I would like to avoid having me or mine caught in the clenched fists of a dying state.

And while I concede that such an event may one day occur, I do not believe the 'right to bear arms' is thus justified.
But yes, this is simply a difference of opinion.

 

[variant]

Aren't they? How can we fix that?

Oh! I know! We can makes laws against it! *clap clap* Isn't that a GREAT idea? Then we won't have to worry about bad things. After all, when we illegalize things like drugs or alcohol, that works GREAT doesn't it? I mean, people wouldn't break the law would they? I'll bet if we illegalized Pornography, strip clubs and swearing in public it'd be a HUGE SUCCESS! people would see how wrong they are and stop doing bad things, then all would be sunshine and rainbows! =D *hugs self*

Well laws are actually really useful tools to keep one people from harming each other and thus allowing society to function.

I mean I am all for the laws against murder don't stop people from murdering; it stops some people from murdering, and holds murderers accountable.

What I object to is making laws against what SOME people think are bad things like pornography where the people enjoying or partaking in them aren't really directly harming anyone in particular. Laws against things like this are attempts to regulate how people think and live their lives and are antithetical to the purposes of free societies.

Some people really don't want to live in free societies, because it means their neighbor can do what they please, even if you have severe moral or religious reasons for not approving of it.

What I object to is makeing laws against what SOME people think are bad things like pornography where the people enjoying or partakeing in them aren't really directly harming anyone in particular. Laws against things like this are attempts to regulate how people think and live their lives and are antithetical to the purposes of free societys.

Some people really don't want to live in free societys, because it means their neighbor can do what they please, even if you have severe moral or religious reasons for not approveing of it.

 

[chaz345]

What I object to is makeing laws against what SOME people think are bad things like pornography where the people enjoying or partakeing in them aren't really directly harming anyone in particular. Laws against things like this are attempts to regulate how people think and live their lives and are antithetical to the purposes of free societys.

So I assume that you are against laws against guns since only some people feel that the gun itself is the problem.

 

[mpok1519]

legalize pot and then our police and govt would have more money to spend on enforcing laws that actually matter.

also, in Ks, we have a ne wlaw; police can pull you over if your PASSENGER isnt wearing a seat-belt. Its a horrible idea because of the following;

1)wastes more police time enforcing 'seat belt laws' (which are a joke in my eye)
2)gives police more reasons to pull over dilapidated cars on the idea that the occupants of the vehicle will have narcotics on them (a form of classism: "Hey, look at that really crappy p.o.s. I bet they do drugs. Pull em over Danno. ~sirens~) This is not only highly illegal for police to do, but also murders a piece of the American soul/constitution.

Our govt is doing more and more to destroy the lower classes than they are protecting them.