If the U.S. is such a free country...

Ana the Ist said:

The problem is that this isn't the whole picture. A lot of first time offenders with small quantities were getting funneled into treatment as an alternative to jail because they were arrested. That won't happen now that they can't be arrested...they'll need to seek treatment themselves.

Click to expand...

I'm struggling with this concept. I can't see that a first time offender with a couple of joints in his glovebox is going to need, or be offered, treatment. That's akin to saying we should arrest anyone who has a bottle of Jack in the glovebox because if we don't they won't call AA themselves.

Bradskii said:

I'm struggling with this concept. I can't see that a first time offender with a couple of joints in his glovebox is going to need, or be offered, treatment. That's akin to saying we should arrest anyone who has a bottle of Jack in the glovebox because if we don't they won't call AA themselves.

Click to expand...

Can't bend the law to fit every single person's peculiarities.

Estrid said:

Can't bend the law to fit every single person's peculiarities.

Click to expand...

Do you think that if someone has a couple of joints now and then that he should be jailed or given the option of 'treatment'? Asking for a friend.

Bradskii said:

Do you think that if someone has a couple of joints now and then that he should be jailed or given the option of 'treatment'? Asking for a friend.

Click to expand...

I don't know.

( very very old, very very dear very close personal friend?)

Estrid said:

I don't know.

( very very old, very very dear very close personal friend?)

Click to expand...

I'm not that old. Sorry, he's not that old. Close friend of my wife...

Bradskii said:

I'm struggling with this concept. I can't see that a first time offender with a couple of joints in his glovebox is going to need, or be offered, treatment.

Click to expand...

Right. I was referring to drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine heroin, etc.

Wasn't really talking about marijuana.

That's akin to saying we should arrest anyone who has a bottle of Jack in the glovebox because if we don't they won't call AA themselves.

Click to expand...

Well luckily no one is saying that. I suppose I could have been more specific about which drugs I meant....but I figured that when I mentioned drug users needing treatment, nobody would think "he's talking about marijuana!" for obvious reasons.

I'll try to remember you're here on the forum @Bradskii.

Bradskii said:

I'm not that old. Sorry, he's not that old. Close friend of my wife...

Click to expand...

I borrowed that line from some old (very) comedian.

Anyway, I've noticed that everyone seems to have a
solution to the education problem, to drugs, etc.

I don't.

I am against drug use on every sort of level,
health, "spiritual", social responsibility, etc.

What measures to take-dont ask me.
I see theres a man in Singapore facing hanging
for a kilo of marijuana.
I'd never advocate for that.

Ana the Ist said:

Right. I was referring to drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine heroin, etc.

Wasn't really talking about marijuana.



Well luckily no one is saying that. I suppose I could have been more specific about which drugs I meant....but I figured that when I mentioned drug users needing treatment, nobody would think "he's talking about marijuana!" for obvious reasons.

I'll try to remember you're here on the forum @Bradskii.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Although the penalty in Australia for cannabis possession can be two years. Supply someone with a small amount and it can be a lot longer.

Estrid said:

I borrowed that line from some old (very) comedian.

Anyway, I've noticed that everyone seems to have a
solution to the education problem, to drugs, etc.

I don't.

I am against drug use on every sort of level,
health, "spiritual", social responsibility, etc.

What measures to take-dont ask me.
I see theres a man in Singapore facing hanging
for a kilo of marijuana.
I'd never advocate for that.

Click to expand...

Wow. Just a kilo. Well, I can't say I'm against drugs of any kind because I'm drinking a glass of a South American rum as I write this. And I ain't drinking it for the taste. Even though it's delicious. And I never drank moutai for the taste. Even though it's disgusting.

Bradskii said:

Wow. Just a kilo. Well, I can't say I'm against drugs of any kind because I'm drinking a glass of a South American rum as I write this. And I ain't drinking it for the taste. Even though it's delicious. And I never drank moutai for the taste. Even though it's disgusting.

Click to expand...

Had to look up moutai to be sure you meant what I thought.

I just don't drink at all, it has no appeal to me.
Not that I never ever, but it's so not for me.

As for booze or cigarettes being drugs, that is
a kind of slippery slope argument.

Bradskii said:

Wow. Just a kilo. Well, I can't say I'm against drugs of any kind because I'm drinking a glass of a South American rum as I write this.

Click to expand...

Cool! South American Rum! Sweeeeeeeet.

And I ain't drinking it for the taste. Even though it's delicious.

Click to expand...

LOL.

And I never drank moutai for the taste. Even though it's disgusting.

Click to expand...

Internet for the win!

RDKirk said:

Laws are only obeyed by the law-abiding, so gun laws aren't the cure for a love of killing...any more than abortion laws are the cure for unwanted pregnancies.

Click to expand...

Guns, like many other things, can be used as weapons to harm the innocent. If a house was full of knifes and it's resident had a mental break they may find themselves reaching for thoses knifes to cause harm.

But that too simplified because if our house was full of butter knifes although a butter knife can harm it is less of a concern then say a house full of swords.

Guns are probably more deady than knifes, so of course the topic shouldn't be taken facetiously, but a shotgun, a concealed hand gun, and an assault rifle are all very different weapons designed for different purposes.

I'd personally rather for there to be less access to those deadlier weapons so when the unstable moments happen an assault rifle isn't in reach. Of course this pertains to the law abiding and the non law abiding as well as their potentially emotionally unstable households.

DamianWarS said:

Guns, like many other things, can be used as weapons to harm the innocent.

Click to expand...

Guns can also be used to protect the innocent.

Unless you are willing to ensure the safety of myself and my family, it is immoral for you to work against my efforts to protect myself and my family.

RDKirk said:

Guns can also be used to protect the innocent.

Unless you are willing to ensure the safety of myself and my family, it is immoral for you to work against my efforts to protect myself and my family.

Click to expand...

That's something of a straw man. I don't see any arguments on this subject where people are arguing for the complete removal of all guns from society. As far as I am concerned, you can protect your family as best you see fit. I support your right to do so. And I will readily accede that if I lived in an area where violence was common, I'd consider getting one myself. And if my friends in the same position decided to get one as well, for the same purpose, then I'd support them. But...

...I have at least one friend who I would say (for reasons I won't go into) is not a fit and suitable person to have a gun. And I would fight tooth and nail to have laws in place that would restrict them in circumstances where they might well be used for something other than defence against someone intent to harm you and yours.

So I would want controls in place. I would want checks made. I'd want all reasonable precautions taken so that guns aren't readily available to those whom it is reasonably decided are not fit and suitable.

The argument then becomes one over what restrictions there should be. But I think that all reasonable people should be able to reach some agreement on that.

RDKirk said:

Laws are only obeyed by the law-abiding

Click to expand...

Thus technically making them redundant.

, so gun laws aren't the cure for a love of killing...any more than abortion laws are the cure for unwanted pregnancies.

Click to expand...

The "cure" for unwanted pregnancies might include things like improved social safety nets and welfare. Given that slipping into socialism is the worst possible thing for our freedom we may have to continue having the problem of abortions.

If only sweet little fetuses didn't have to die to preserve our mighty American way of life...

Bradskii said:

That's something of a straw man. I don't see any arguments on this subject where people are arguing for the complete removal of all guns from society. As far as I am concerned, you can protect your family as best you see fit. I support your right to do so. And I will readily accede that if I lived in an area where violence was common, I'd consider getting one myself. And if my friends in the same position decided to get one as well, for the same purpose, then I'd support them. But...

Click to expand...

Here in America we are working toward that glorious day when all Americans have guns on them. It will make things a lot safer here when everyone has a gun.

So I would want controls in place.

Click to expand...

That's infringing Americans' Second Amendment Rights and given that they are established in the US Constitution you can't really do that. But thanks for trying.

I would want checks made. I'd want all reasonable precautions taken so that guns aren't readily available to those whom it is reasonably decided are not fit and suitable.

Click to expand...

That's a slippery slope. One person's mental illness is another person's simple, natural love of their guns.

The argument then becomes one over what restrictions there should be. But I think that all reasonable people should be able to reach some agreement on that.

Click to expand...

LOL. Sorry, no. Not here.

Bradskii said:

That's something of a straw man. I don't see any arguments on this subject where people are arguing for the complete removal of all guns from society.

Click to expand...

The sentence I'm responding to is:

I'd personally rather for there to be less access to those deadlier weapons so when the unstable moments happen an assault rifle isn't in reach.

Click to expand...

How does that situation--determined by a third party--not preclude having a firearm available when necessary?

So I would want controls in place. I would want checks made. I'd want all reasonable precautions taken so that guns aren't readily available to those whom it is reasonably decided are not fit and suitable.

The argument then becomes one over what restrictions there should be. But I think that all reasonable people should be able to reach some agreement on that.

Click to expand...

People say that, which sounds very reasonable, but always, always, always, always push for complete removal--or some situation that makes self-defense impracticable. Even in these forums, that happens.

For-profit prisons are basically slavery - enslaving people to work for someone to make them money. And of course, since they always want more money, they will go out of their way to influence laws and law enforcement to get as many people in prison as possible, regardless of guilt or innocence.

pacomascarot said:

That's infringing Americans' Second Amendment Rights and given that they are established in the US Constitution you can't really do that.

Click to expand...

So no controls whatsoever. Fair enough. Thanks for putting your position so clearly.