Pot Use Disqualifies You as a Gun owner/Purchaser!

[Saltyag2010]

So, to continue our conversation from yesterday: This is something you and I will never agree on Salty. Have you seen the news reports about the mayhem caused by K2, Angel Dust and Bath salts? Libertarians like to say that it's their decision and they will bear the consequences of their own bad decisions....but what about the victims of drug abusers who have a psychotic episode? Isn't it reasonable and natural for societies to set up rules and enforce them? Even the early Native Americans had tribal councils, set up rules and regulations and enforced them else their society would devolve into chaos.

The easy answer is- these are illegal and there for sale on the black market. If they had to go through the process of being legit drugs. K2 is a "legal weed" that's worse than the real thing to the user. You can thank our own gov for allowing that to come into popularity.
PCP was legal for use on animals, but is it something there's a market for or is it just something that the black market pushes on unknowing customers?
Bath salts are a cheap easily available substitute for other drugs. There's many others out there that are terrible that have a market that kill their users - krocodil and that cocaine byproduct in South America, but they have a market that came from the war on drugs. I think if people had options these type of drugs would simply go away.

Does anyone who can buy liquor or beer legally get it on the black market? Nope. with the exception of moonshine buyers.

If a person can get weed easily and cheaper that's better than the black market the black market will erode. We just have to protect and fight for our gun rights while these changes happen.

edit- that South American dry is paco. In my research there is something called "dragons breath" that's pretty shitty too.

 

[Southpaw]

^^^ I've known people who's choice it was to use PCP. It was never smoked unknowingly. I can tell you this, it 100% of the time turned out infringing on someone else not smoking it.

 

[Younggun]

So, to continue our conversation from yesterday: This is something you and I will never agree on Salty. Have you seen the news reports about the mayhem caused by K2, Angel Dust and Bath salts? Libertarians like to say that it's their decision and they will bear the consequences of their own bad decisions....but what about the victims of gun violence? Isn't it reasonable and natural for societies to set up rules and enforce them? Even the early Native Americans had tribal councils, set up rules and regulations and enforced them else their society would devolve into chaos.

Changed a couple words for perspective.

Irresponsible people will be irresponsible. Sometimes bad things will happen. People who do bad things will be punished. Freedom is a risky proposition.

No, I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm saying not to criminalize someone for doing something that another person might do in an irresponsible way.

 

[Saltyag2010]

Changed a couple words for perspective.

Irresponsible people will be irresponsible. Sometimes bad things will happen. People who do bad things will be punished. Freedom is a risky proposition.

No, I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm saying not to criminalize someone for doing something that another person might do in an irresponsible way.

Agreed.

Southpaw- i didn't know anyone knowingly did pcp, regardless it was pushed on them by some drug dealer. Would the same happen in a less restrictive market? It would probably happen less or possibly once/person (people can protect themselves). Either way PCP should be one if the last things anyone should want to try.

 

[Sapper740]

The easy answer is- these are illegal and there for sale on the black market. If they had to go through the process of being legit drugs. K2 is a "legal weed" that's worse than the real thing to the user. You can thank our own gov for allowing that to come into popularity.
PCP was legal for use on animals, but is it something there's a market for or is it just something that the black market pushes on unknowing customers?
Bath salts are a cheap easily available substitute for other drugs. There's many others out there that are terrible that have a market that kill their users - krocodil and that cocaine byproduct in South America, but they have a market that came from the war on drugs. I think if people had options these type of drugs would simply go away.

Does anyone who can buy liquor or beer legally get it on the black market? Nope. with the exception of moonshine buyers.

If a person can get weed easily and cheaper that's better than the black market the black market will erode. We just have to protect and fight for our gun rights while these changes happen.

edit- that South American dry is paco. In my research there is something called "dragons breath" that's pretty shitty too.

I think you're missing the point Salty...it's not about how a drug, illegal or otherwise is acquired, it's about what should be done to mitigate the damage done by drug abusers. Do we simply let them use whatever drug whenever they want and then leave it to others to clean up the mayhem left by them or do we want some level of restriction on obviously dangerous drugs in a pro-active effort to reduce the impact on the non-drug users in society. I have no issue with a governing body enacting reasonable legislation to protect us from druggies. It's "Libertarian" in my mind to be able live a drug-free life if I choose without someone trying to chew my face off who's expressing his "Libertarian" beliefs in a damaging manner.

 

[Saltyag2010]

I think you're missing the point Salty...it's not about how a drug, illegal or otherwise is acquired, it's about what should be done to mitigate the damage done by drug abusers. Do we simply let them use whatever drug whenever they want and then leave it to others to clean up the mayhem left by them or do we want some level of restriction on obviously dangerous drugs in a pro-active effort to reduce the impact on the non-drug users in society. I have no issue with a governing body enacting reasonable legislation to protect us from druggies. It's "Libertarian" in my mind to be able live a drug-free life if I choose without someone trying to chew my face off who's expressing his "Libertarian" beliefs in a damaging manner.

I think you are missing the point. When the drug user is threatening your pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness by trying to eat your face off or burglarize your property it is your right as an American to defend yourself with force. Same as it is now. Same for people driving under the influence. When the gov tries preemptive measures to control people's actions it's liberal. That's what the war on drugs is now. It's a nanny law that leads to the no large soft drinks laws in New York and the 7- round mags in some blue states.
As long as they're not bothering anyone, you gotta leave them alone guns included.

 

[breakingcontact]

It's certainly on their agenda and I think that was the point. IF indeed it did came to that, anyone that owns guns who also have a prescription could easily have their rights suspended all the while thinking they are OK since the state is allowing it.

Entirely agree. We live in an age of lawlessness. Ex post facto wont matter. They will say its about "safety" and do what they damned well please.

We can no longer expect the government to respect our rights or for the gov to follow the laws.

Its all up for grabs.

Read Saul Alinsky. These revolutionaries arent trying to conduct a Soviet style revolution. Its a soft revolution perpetuated over generations and most importantly using EXISTING institutions and structures while dividing and marginalizing the resistance.

Its all going according to plan folks. God I hope more people wake up soon.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

I think you're missing the point Salty...it's not about how a drug, illegal or otherwise is acquired, it's about what should be done to mitigate the damage done by drug abusers. Do we simply let them use whatever drug whenever they want and then leave it to others to clean up the mayhem left by them or do we want some level of restriction on obviously dangerous drugs in a pro-active effort to reduce the impact on the non-drug users in society. I have no issue with a governing body enacting reasonable legislation to protect us from druggies. It's "Libertarian" in my mind to be able live a drug-free life if I choose without someone trying to chew my face off who's expressing his "Libertarian" beliefs in a damaging manner.

Your statement pretty much sums up big government's justification for more big government.

You cannot separate hard drug use from welfare and government dependence, and so follows more government intervention.

Oh, and if a person comes at me on PCP, they are as good as dead. That's how you handle that.

 

[benenglish]

Coke can be out of your system insanely quick.

Remember when the Air Force switched to random testing for pilots and the backlash on that? Under the scheduled testing system, pilots could use coke, stop before the tests, test clean, and continue to fly. They may have been using illegal drugs but they were in control of their use.

If a pilot failed a scheduled test, that meant he had a serious problem.

That system worked.

Random testing works about as well but sends a giant "We don't trust you" message to the tested. In organizations where morale can be the difference between life and death, that's not a good thing.

All in all, I think they could have left the old system in place with negligible ill effects.

 

[TheDan]

Anarchists don't believe in government and want marshal law.

huh? Marshal law is a form of government.

So if I form an HOA to create some reasonable rules for my neighborhood can I be accused of "Rights Violations" jes askin'.

Nope. People enter into HOA agreements voluntarily. A libertarian society would definitely be a living hell for sociopaths who can't make beneficial personal connections, but even the government teat suckers would be better off after an adjustment period.

You think that all layers or levels of government have no role in encouraging good behavior and discouraging bad?

Enforce contracts. Seek justice for people who are unable to seek it themselves (children, the infirm, the deceased who were murdered, etc..). Defense of the realm.

Those three things are about all I can think of that the government is actually needed for, and even those could be outsourced to the private sector.

So, I suppose the question has to be first asked. Do libertarians believe in a restoration of what once was or are they advocating something new entirely?

Depends on the libertarian, lol... When these United States were founded it was the smallest functional government the world had ever seen. Unfortunately the direction we've "progressed" is inching back to total government. It's my opinion that we should have kept moving the goal posts to smaller and smaller government until we didn't even really need it at all.

Once, men left the eastern cities and went west. No law. No Cavalry, No guarantees.
Some of that spirit lives on. Some of us just need our space and less of the "progress" others are so fond of.


I just really want to be left alone to revel in my victories and suffer in my defeats.
I know the transportation systems and this internet make that impossible these days.

There's still Alaska, but I agree... We need a new frontier. Who wants to goto Mars with me?!

A good read is The Gangs of New York

I saw the movie. That counts, right?

I work an office job for a big company and had to pass drug test as well.

There's no way they could drug test employees at my current or previous place of employment. We have a keggerator at work, too. It's good for productivity...

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

huh? Marshal law is a form of government.

I know. My WTF radar went off as well. Makes no sense at all.

 

[karlac]

I know. My WTF radar went off as well. Makes no sense at all.

Not to mention that it is martial law.

 

[Sapper740]

Not to mention that it is martial law.

Thank you.

 

[Sapper740]

Not to mention that it is martial law.

Let me see if I got this right: Under Martial law there are ordinances and under Marshall law they're our ordnance? Or have I got it bass-ackwards?

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I vote for Mexican_Hippie law. I promise to be a "benevolent" dicator.

 

[ROGER4314]

Two issues from the OP remain.

Does disqualification of your firearm purchase due to use of MJ, also make it illegal for you to POSSESS firearms?

Feinstein and her Liberal buddies have pending legislation which allows the Feds to confiscate firearms owned by a mentally unbalanced person. The trigger for this confiscation is if the FAMILY of that gun owner requests intervention. If passed, all those turds need to do is modify the trigger!

For instance, under this bill, privately owned firearms can be confiscated if the family requests that (or as added later)...... if that person smokes weed, has a domestic dispute or has brown eyes. This is seriously dangerous legislation!

Flash

 

[OnyxATX]

I think there's a difference between "use" and "abuse" of a substance. The person with crippling back pain that chooses to smoke to help them sleep at night is not the same person that smokes all day long in front of the TV and neglects everything else in life. I think opiate pain killers and benzos are pretty dangerous and highly abused, but doctors throw them out like candy and no one seems up in arms about them. We have a billion pain killers out there, being more addictive than pot... or Xanax that is very dangerous and easy to abuse but no one says a word. There are tons of folks out there that don't abuse them, because we trust people to make decisions like adults.

I have a good buddy that had testicular cancer, thought he won the battle and it ended up showing up in his brain. The treatment was so bad he spent six months in bed unable to work or do much of anything. Started smoking pot to mitigate the side effects, and it worked. He got a good job, started being able to pay his bills again, and support his wife. (No children) So... the question comes up, what is better? To have him be a drain on society because he couldn't work, or smoke dope and then be able to work and function again?

Basically, who is the government to tell someone what's best for them... and how they should live their life? If it's not interfering with anyone else, it shouldn't be illegal. The second it interferes, then take legal action against them. Trafficking, driving under the influence, doing it with kids around, things like that are problems.

Drive around high? Jail.
Go to work high? Fired.
Sell to kids? Prison.
Live alone in the woods, grow pot for yourself, and smoke in your home? Who cares, doesn't affect society.

We should punish people who make choices that adversely affect society... not try to dictate how people live behind closed doors and tell them "daddy knows what's best for your life." I'm not saying it's a good idea, healthy, or anything like that... just simply trying to say there is a huge level of intrusion in how the current laws function.


With all that being said, we spend a ton of money and clog up our jail/prison system over it as well. I don't really see that as a good idea...

As far as the 4473? I think it's ridiculous, as it basically says "you can be a drunk, or high as a kite from prescribed pain killers, but we don't trust you if you smoke pot." The same as non violent felonies... we shouldn't take away peoples rights to guns because of their life choices that don't affect other people.

Decriminalize the substance, make negative actions with it illegal as heck. (Selling to kids, neglecting parenting, driving, etc.)

 

[ROGER4314]

That may be a good plan down the road and no one argues that MJ should not be classified the same as Heroin or other heavy duty drugs. The fact remains that today, MJ IS classified as a dangerous narcotic. If Obama and Holder decline to prosecute possession charges, it is vastly different than decriminalizing MJ. The law still reads the same as it always has. MJ use prevents you from purchasing firearms. I maintain that Holder and Obama are setting this up intentionally and will spring that trap after legalized MJ becomes more popular and widespread.

Flash

 

[matefrio]

One of the major gripes the LV shooter had was that pot use and the trouble it got him in kept him from owning guns.

 

[Southpaw]

As far as the 4473? I think it's ridiculous, as it basically says "you can be a drunk, or high as a kite from prescribed pain killers, but we don't trust you if you smoke pot." The same as non violent felonies... we shouldn't take away peoples rights to guns because of their life choices that don't affect other people.

Decriminalize the substance, make negative actions with it illegal as heck. (Selling to kids, neglecting parenting, driving, etc.)

I get your point but there are non-violent felonies that affect other people.