Right. Current illegal drugs do two things. One, they are an element in positive social interactions. As my friends used to say, drugs bring people together, and it’s true of weeds, etc., as it is of alcohol (and alcohol definitely does that). Two, for some they inspire creativity and motivation–they’re sort of weak nootropics.
To everything a dose, though.
Stimulants are also an effective method of weight loss, and improve some people’s performance at some jobs.
Some prescription drugs have the same positive effect on a person whether or not the person has a certain little piece of paper.
But the point remains, guns and drugs are entirely different sorts of problems and solutions. They’re both tools, but they’re tools that do different things to people in different ways. Not similar at all.
Not to mention the right to own guns is protected by the constitution. Congress is not similarly constrained from passing legislation controlling drugs.
The argument against drug legalization seems to imply that drugs are a more destructive force in society than guns. Is that something anti-drug people would agree with?
What does that have to do with anything?
Wow, Cagey Drifter, you really take your name seriously – I’ve looked through a couple of your threads. I like you!
Sorry, I didn’t realise it was neccessary to have direct experience of something before you could suggest improvements or make commentary on it. I’ll bow out of this thread, and hang my head in shame. :dubious:
I think the point being made is that there is a law allowing one group of people to have in their possession highly powerful and purposely lethal products, yet another group of people are not allowed to have an ounce of cocaine or other product in their pocket.
Perhaps adults should be allowed to purchase a license to possess certain illicit drugs, until government gets a backbone and starts working on making them legal?
But pot’s not highly powerful and purposefully lethal. LSD is powerful, but not lethal either. And I have no idea what the LD-50 of E is, but I suspect it’s rather high.
The proposals don’t even match up that way.
What **Ivan ** said. I’m trying to understand the rationale for supporting one and not the other. If they are not commensurable, as you are suggesting, then it would suggest that the illegality of drugs is not based on a simple lapse in logic, but on a potentially well-reasoned believe that it poses considerable harm to society. Given that guns are legal, it would logically stand to follow that the expected problems stemming from guns is less than that of drugs. However, I find it hard to believe that this is true.
I fail to see how it logically follows. You could say the same thing about cars.
I deny that the illegality of drugs is based on a lapse of logic or a well-reasoned belief it poses considerable harm to society.
In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that part of the the reason, say, a relatively harmless drug like pot is illegal is because of racism. You see, people believed that it drove Mexicans crazy. (and black people as well.)
Try looking up why things were outlawed in the first place. Wasn’t because of physical harm at all.
I suspect there are probably more pro-drug/anti-gun people on this board than vice versa. It might be easier to ask them about their logic.
I know why they were made illegal in the first place. But now we’re talking about why it is argued that they can’t be legalized.
… and that has similarities to guns how? I’d think it’s more like prostitution.
Not speaking for Cagey Drifter, but I have long seen a correlation between drugs and guns. Basically, it comes down to our government not trusting us to use inanimate things responsibly. More accurately, just certain inanimate things. Worse yet, the law rarely makes much sense. For example:
Weed - illegal. Cigarettes - legal. We all know by now why this makes no sense.
Fully automatic weapons - illegal (unless you’re rich). Semi-automatic weapons - legal. Okay, this is harder for most people to grasp. Fully automatic weapons deplete a 30-round magazine very quickly - AK-47s shoot 650 rounds per minute. This results in a greater ammo expenditure than is necessary to murder unarmed civilians. Fully automatic weapons are basically good for room clearing and suppressive fire. Belt-fed machine guns (as opposed to assault rifles and submachine guns) are just plain awkward and heavy. Furthermore, full-auto isn’t exactly controllable, especially if you aren’t trained in its use. Even the soldiers in Vietnam wasted so much ammunition that the Army discontinued issuing M16s to regular soldiers in fully automatic - M16s are three round burst and semi, to this day. So why are fully automatics illegal when their semi-automatic counterparts are a-okay?
For the record, I’m pro-gun and pro-drug legalization.