News

Rant

Why America Should Legalize Recreational Drugs

Posted 45 months ago|50 comments|1,832 views
Written by
Dwayne Johnson

The answer is simple but not easy to accept. First I will list the reasons and then I will offer an explanation as to why people will not readily accept such a change.

1) Reduce more serious criminal activity such as gun running, extortion, murders, slave trade, all which are funded and supported with drug money.

2) Put a hurting to organized crime by hitting them where it hurts, their bank accounts. Nobody will buy illegal drugs that are not tested, quality or price controlled when there are effective legal ones that are. This will force such organizations to either sell them legitimately to make up for lost revenue and thus expose themselves to government inquires into their financial holdings or try to continue producing, exporting and selling a product which has been severely devalued by a flooded market.

3) As I alluded to in number two people feel encouraged to purchase products that are tested and regulated. It makes them feel safe. This also means that such testing and regulation will inevitably lead to improved quality and effectiveness. Thus improving the over all strength and usefulness of products that otherwise would be of varying quality and risk. Anybody who doubts this should just look at the Tobacco and Spirits industries .

4) There is no legitimate reason why Tobacco and Alcohol should be legal and other recreational drugs aren't. People should be able to intoxicate themselves with the poison of their choice. Not just the ones that are "Nanny State approved." Consider that all of them are poisons that ultimately cause death. Who should have that choice, the individual or Uncle Sam?

5) More stuff to tax! That should make every one with a pork project happy and they can ease their troubled conscience by putting a portion of it to education of the deleterious effects of drugs (All of them!). They can also spend some of the taxes on rehabilitation instead of spending money on incarceration.

6) Studies have shown that people are less prone to engage in a vice if it is seen as sociably acceptable because it looses it's "naughty" factor. People like to engage in things that are perceived as risqué.
____________________________________________________________________________________

1) Now the reasons why people would never go for it is because there is a moral and social stigma attached to drugs. The Christian church especially has done a bang up job of making people believe that they are bound for hell if they engage in the use of recreational drugs. When the fact is people pick and choose their addictions every day and so long as it is not illegal the Church doesn't stigmatize or condemn the rest of those law abiding folks. People only hurt them selves when they abuse drugs, not God and God is merciful to the weak not vindictive.

2) The other reason is the misguided belief that we are winning the war on drugs, that somehow all the narco-traffickers are running for the hills. Where there is money to be made people will flock. The criminal elements around the world are winning because they have a gold mine in the drug business. Shut the mine down and terrorist groups and mafias and all kinds of low life will loose the biggest cash cow they have.

3) This one is probably the scariest of all and that is people are afraid of unleashing a genie they will not be able to bottle back up. The idea goes that once legal everybody and their mother will run to the local grocery store and buy a pack of cocaine lights. They are afraid that, if the experiment fails there will be a social revolt unlike ever before. When the reality is that a failure in this experiment would result in a bunch of junkies going through withdrawal not a national revolt. How many of you smoke or drink and have converted all their non-smoking and non-drinking friends, hmm? Exactly, none and that is the point that it is irrational to even consider that such a thing would even happen.

4) Then there is the thought that endorsing such a law means that you condone such vices. That couldn't be further from the truth. All vices have their varying degrees of addiction. There are those that use drugs within manageable limits and then there are those that are uncontrollable addicts. For these there needs to be health care and support none of which is possible when they are shooting up in dark allies under the cover of night. The fact is we don't have to worry of the user. We have to worry about the abuser. The truth is if you know and love an addict you will support a law that makes his addiction manageable and not criminal.

So there you have it. Tell me what you think. Pro or con lets start the debate.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: I say give it another ten years, and you will probably have your wish. A tranquilized nation will be very much easier to control. If we want it work, though, we will have to give the junk away to the junkies. All the new addicts will turn to crime to support their new habits when they can no longer maintain a job to buy the stuff.

Many people have very addictive natures, whether it be to golf, going to the track, casino gambling, whatever makes them feel better temporarily. Making addictive substances widely and easily available does not seem like such a great idea.
45 months ago: What a wonderful idea. I became a widow at age 30 because of a impaired driver. Not only did I lose my soulmate but also my 5 year old son. I will spend the Holidays visiting my family in the graveyard. Merry Christmas.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: Driving under the influence is prohibited by law in every one of the 50 states. That law really protected your family, didn't it?

BTW, was the one who murdered your loved ones ever prosecuted? Successfully? If so what punishment did they receive?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: Driving under the influence is prohibited by law in every one of the 50 states. That law really protected your family, didn't it?

BTW, was the one who murdered your loved ones ever prosecuted? Successfully? If so what punishment did they receive?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: Driving under the influence is prohibited by law in every one of the 50 states. That law really protected your family, didn't it?

BTW, was the one who murdered your loved ones ever prosecuted? Successfully? If so what punishment did they receive?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: Here's a question for you. Where does the constitution give the federal government the right to tell me what substance(s) I may or may not introduce into my body. Does the mantra "My body. My choice" ONLY apply to women wanting to slaughter their unborn children?

As an adult do I not have the right to introduce whatever substance into my own body by whatever means I see fit? Where do you, OOTB, get off restricting MY actions so long as they do not harm others? I am truly sorry for your loss, Happygolucky, and I believe that the miscreant who killed your loved ones should be executed. But how does that person's act give you or anyone else to restrict the activities of other adults? If someone commits a crime they should be prosecuted. But they - WE - all should be treated as adults.

Oh, and for the record, I consume no recreational substances. I don't drink, or smoke (tobacco or other things), or use anything. I do drink coffee. I only argue for liberty.
Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson
45 months ago: Happy,

Sound really bad. Was it alcohol? I wonder how many of the people that drink alcohol drive inebriated? Certainly nowhere near the 100% that it would have to be to blame alcohol for the loss of your family. The problem lies elsewhere.

Out of the box,

What new junkies? An addict to golf will not suddenly pick up a different sport if it becomes available. Drugs are no different!
Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson
45 months ago: BadCyborg,

Bravo, that is my point exactly!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: BadCyborg

You sound like a responsible person who probably wouldn't let an addiction get out of control. You probably wouldn't get addicted to the point that you would do anything to get your next fix. You probably wouldn't drive under the influence, putting others in jeopardy. And you probably wouldn't continue to use until you became a major burden on society, with ravaged health and costly unproductivity. You are the exception.

Dwayne Johnson

I'm not talking about switching addictions. I'm talking about average people who would never dream of getting drugs from an illegal dope pusher, but would have no problem picking up a package of legal Morphomine Relaxation Tabs or Cocadrex Fizzers from Walgreens. You would be putting the temptation in front of people who would normally never come into contact with the outlawed substances. People that don't like the taste of alcohol, or the bad side effects the next day, would be able to snort, pop, inject, or transdermally absorb the anesthetic or stimulant of his choice.

If you think I am wrong, do some research into the number of people addicted to legal narcotics, and how much those numbers are increasing every day.

Should we do away the practice of having prescriptions altogether? Should every drug on the market be available as over the counter medication? I know I could handle that, I haven't been to see a doctor to get medicine in twenty years, and the only reason I take my children is to get tests performed that I don't the equipment for. But, and I'm not bragging, many people do not have the knowledge to know what to take, how much to take, and when to take it.

Another question for BadCyborg

If someone was infected with AIDS and knew it wanted to go around and have sex with as many people as he could before he died, would you object? Would you let your daughter have sex with him? After all, it's her body, her choice.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago:
If someone was infected with AIDS and knew it wanted to go around and have sex with as many people as he could before he died, would you object? Would you let your daughter have sex with him? After all, it's her body, her choice.

Let her? Try and STOP a teener who wants to do "it"! Hell! She let one little weasel into my house one night. I caught him sleeping on the floor in my daughter's room whereupon I picked him up bodily and tossed him out the front door, completely over the (admittedly small) front porch and onto the grass. Then I advised him that if I caught him in my house again I'd "remove his manhood alltogether" so that he looked like a Ken doll. When he told me that I'd go to jail for that my reply was that I could expect to get out of jail long before his weenie and package grew back!
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: OOTB asks
People that don't like the taste of alcohol, or the bad side effects the next day, would be able to snort, pop, inject, or transdermally absorb the anesthetic or stimulant of his choice.

If they have reached their majority, yes. Either they are, in fact, adults or they are not.

As for prescriptions. I would not know what to take for a given ailment. For that I would consult a trained professional - i.e. a Doctor - for recommendations as to what to take, how much, and how often to take it.

You would be putting the temptation in front of people who would normally never come into contact with the outlawed substances.

Whereas you, who possess superior wisdom and knowledge, would - strictly for their own protection/good - restrict what some other adult would be allowed to do. Is that pretty much it? Who do you think you are? Who made you the/an arbiter of acceptable behavior. Would YOU like it if Dwayne or I took it upon ourselves to restrict YOUR liberty?

What's next? Restricting the calorie count of foods? Regulating portion sizes in restaurants? Where does protecting people from themselves end?

Should the government be able to prohibit ACTIVITIES considered dangerous? How about the lunatics who jump out of perfectly good airplanes just for the fun of it? More than a few of them die every year. Or how about those total crazies they call "base jumpers" (the ones who jump off of cliffs and tall buildings)?

Thousands of people die in automobile collisions every year. Should the government prohibit that? It would unquestionably save lives.

Where does it end?

Where does it end?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: "As for prescriptions. I would not know what to take for a given ailment."

That being said, would you still want all medicines to be available to anyone of legal age, over the counter? Prozac in the convenient bubble packs? Lortabs that fit into a Pez dispenser? Epilepsy medicine right next to the aspirin, so every hypochondriac can get what he thinks he needs? It's "My body, My choice", right? Do you think everyone should be able to choose their own antibiotic without consulting a physician?

I too have been closely affected by alcohol and drugs. I have seen an alcoholic go to rehab and come out a pillhead, due to the large amounts of medications given to recovering alcoholics. Then a pill addict. Then a pill black market purveyor. Then on to other drugs, like crystal meth and crack, from the association with drug dealers to get pills. Then on to losing their family and all their possessions, and even their sanity. And believe me, it's no cakewalk to see a loved one destroy their own life and permanently damage the lives of everyone they know.

As far as restricting dangerous activities.

Answer this question. Would you care if your neighbor shot his firearm into the air a hundred times every day? Let's assume he has a silencer on it, so the noise isn't a factor. It's his property, his gun, his finger pulling the trigger. Chances are very slight that a bullet would fall back to earth and hit you. So the question is, would you let him shoot his gun, or would you ask him to stop or report him to the authorities? Now, a bonus question. What if he was drunk or high, and shooting his gun in his own yard? Until he hits you with a bullet, he's done nothing wrong.

As far as a base jumper goes, if he was jumping out over a crowd of children, and your child in the crowd, (or grandchild) and say you were 100 miles away, would you want someone to stop him from jumping? Or would you just say it's his right, his body, and hope his parachute opens?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: Oh, and just so you know. I have not lived 60 odd years without being affected by alcohol or drugs. I once had an uncle who was only 3 years older than me. He didn't see 50 - due to drug usage. I also had a baby brother some seven years younger than me. He died of liver failure - one of the very worst ways to go there is. Between the addiction to alcohol and hepatitis C his liver went. Before he died I got to learn some absolutely fascinating terms like hepatic coma, hepatic neuropathy, hepatic encephalopathy. A substance abuse counselor I know (he is an alcoholic and minister) once told me that the difference between an alcoholic and a drunk is that the alcoholic admits he has a problem.

My baby brother died a drunk. The official COD was subdural hematoma. He bled out into his brain. You see liver failure eliminates the blood's ability to clot. I held his medical power of attorney so it fell to me to pull the plug on my baby brother. Fun detail that. TONS of fun. Then I held his hand while he breathed his last.

But none of that gives me the right to tell someone else they may not go to heaven or hell in whatever conveyance they choose.

Do you disagree, OOTB?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: Oh, and just so you know. I have not lived 60 odd years without being affected by alcohol or drugs. I once had an uncle who was only 3 years older than me. He didn't see 50 - due to drug usage. I also had a baby brother some seven years younger than me. He died of liver failure - one of the very worst ways to go there is. Between the addiction to alcohol and hepatitis C his liver went. Before he died I got to learn some absolutely fascinating terms like hepatic coma, hepatic neuropathy, hepatic encephalopathy. A substance abuse counselor I know (he is an alcoholic and minister) once told me that the difference between an alcoholic and a drunk is that the alcoholic admits he has a problem.

My baby brother died a drunk. The official COD was subdural hematoma. He bled out into his brain. You see liver failure eliminates the blood's ability to clot. I held his medical power of attorney so it fell to me to pull the plug on my baby brother. Fun detail that. TONS of fun. Then I held his hand while he breathed his last.

But none of that gives me the right to tell someone else they may not go to heaven or hell in whatever conveyance they choose.

Do you disagree, OOTB?
45 months ago: Addiction isn't treated as a medical condition. If a driver was sick, impaired from chemo, would society demonize all cancer patients? No, it loves cancer, raise tons of $$$ on it. People don't choose addiction. They biologically react differently to substances.

Until there is proper, medical treatment, impaired driving will happen. It will get worse, especially now as funds are cut for treatment programs because of the economy. Cut when people turn to alcohol/drugs for solace over economic woes.

Prison and jail do NOT provide treatment. Criminalizing disease is wrong. Addiction is the only disease I can think of that people are arrested for having. Criminals found "insane" are sentenced to a mental lockup facility, not prison. Alcoholics are sent to jail w/hard core dudes (anyone ever seen OZ). They need medical treatment, not lockup. If facilities were created to treat alcoholics and addicts, and not some 21 day spin cycle either, then sobriety can be better achieved. THAT is the only thing that will decrease repeat offenses. Will power doesn't keep people sober.

Prescription drugs--Oxy is a problem. Making it illegal (which there's talk of) will drive prices higher than the insane price it is now. Keeping drugs illegal does not keep people from doing them. It only makes them more attractive and it creates a monopoly for criminal enterprises.

The other day I watched a tv show "jail".
The guard said 90% of offenses are alcohol/drug related. He said, if people didn't get high, I wouldn't have a job.

My stake in legalization is prevention, intervention, and adequate medical treatment of addiction.

Losing someone to impaired driving does not go to prove any point. This year, I lost 2 teens that I had mentored to a repeat offender drunk driver. My great-grandfather was killed in a drunk driving accident, throw from the truck. I still think de-criminalizing is better than what we have now.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago:
Addiction isn't treated as a medical condition.

Mostly because it isn't a medical condition. You can call a little black furred and white striped/spotted member of the weasel family a greyhound till hell freezes over but it won't make them anything but a skunk.

If a driver was sick, impaired from chemo, would society demonize all cancer patients? No, it loves cancer, raise tons of $$$ on it.

No. but I'd demand they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for knowingly driving impaired.

People don't choose addiction. They biologically react differently to substances.

No. but they choose to continue the addiction. They choose to drive impaired. One's abuse of a substance or substances is their own affair so long as they are of age. Getting out on the streets and highways operating a motor vehicle while under the influence puts others at risk. If they actually INJURE someone then they should be prosecuted for assault or attempted murder or even criminally negligent homicide. if they do so knowingly then they are looking at something more akin to unpremeditated MURDER.

I don't want the locked to they can get "treatment". I want them locked up so they cannot put me and mine at risk.

Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: "No. but I'd demand they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for knowingly driving impaired."

Impaired= not able to reason or think correctly.

You would advocate freedom to impair yourself with drugs, causing the function of the brain to diminish, and then incarcerate the person whose brain was not functioning correctly?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: OOTB asked:
You would advocate freedom to impair yourself with drugs, causing the function of the brain to diminish, and then incarcerate the person whose brain was not functioning correctly?

Damned straight I would. Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to introduce the mind impairing substance into their body. Any criminal act they perform after that is the result of their own monumental and criminal stupidity.

What? You would give a person who ran down your sweet old mother just because the miscreant was drunk or high or zoned or whatnot? Their body, their choice. Adults should get to live with the consequences of their actions. They choose to drive impaired, they get to suffer (emphasis on SUFFER) the consequences.

If they drive impaired and get into a crash and cripple themselves do you think the universe is going to give a tinker's damn whether they were drunk, high, etc.? I don't care, either.
45 months ago: Do you treat addiction? Have you worked in the field of addiction treatment at all? Are you a chemical dependency counselor? Have you ever dug into the research to see if your ideas are medically valid?

Addiction is certainly a medical condition.

It must be nice to sit so high and might and pass judgment onto others, ignorant judgments at that. Believe me, people like you who condemn w/o knowledge are just as much a part of the circular stigmatizing of addiction, and that is something that prevents it from being adequately treated. You are part of the problem, in your own way.

Drug addiction is presently viewed as a complex neuroadaptive process through which drugs of abuse alter cellular and molecular aspects of neural function in such a way as to render the brain circuits mediating various behavioral effects of these drugs more, or less, responsive to those effects. This process guides behavior in maladaptive directions during which severe physical and social consequences engulf and disable the addict. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of tolerance, sensitization (reverse tolerance), and dependence are rapidly being identified for almost all classes of abused drugs, and both established and new molecules are being investigated intensively using the most modern and advanced technologies available to neuroscience.

I'm not saying that someone who wrecks the car because they are drinking should get a pass because they have a disease. What I am saying is that the current way of doing this does not work. It doesn't work because this country is all about punishment and retribution, rather than rehabilitation (the ONLY true way of bring change). The punishment does not work. If it were a deterrent then there would be less of a problem.

Telling a person to stop using drugs is like asking a blind man to see. Sometimes blind people, through medical interventions, can have their sight restored. We need this breakthrough for addicts.
45 months ago: Oops, forgot the link.

That's block is from the Journal of Neuroscience.

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/ful...

---
The thing people don't understand is why you can line up 4 people, introduce drugs to each of them, and 3 of them will not become addicts. It makes it easy then to say it's all about choice, the person chooses to be a junkie. I can tell you that is not a choice at all. It is the most complicated place to live in and there are very few who actually understand that choice ceases to be part of the equation.

Addiction is not fought with reason. If that were true then I am sure some of our family members would be sober, clean, etc. Read about the brain. As a society we are only beginning to understand how people work. I hope that I see a move to cure addiction before I die. It kills more than breast cancer ever thought of taking. But, it's easier for people to feel sorry for the boob loss than that junkie in the gutter. Women don't know how to feel feminine w/o boobs and guys pay money toward a cure cause they can't have their women w/o them. Talk about a patriarchal society.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
44 months ago: My baby brother died a drunk. My second major was psychology so I am not uninformed in the field. I worked the better part of a year at San Antonio State Hospital (before the left turned our streets into the world's largest open air insane asylum) and saw a lot of addictive behavior. I have a good friend who is a minister, substance abuse counselor and alcoholic (alcoholics admit they have a problem, drunks don't - my brother died a drunk) and Gordon tells me that considering addiction an illness is wrong. I trust his judgement. He's been there and got several t-shirts.

To label alcoholism and other addictions a mental illness in the same way as psychoses and neuroses cheapens the diagnoses of real mental illness.

But when a person decides to drink and drive or use and drive, they have made a decision for which they ought to be punished. If the universe will not give them a pass for the consequences of their actions, neither will I.

But I still say that the government has no business telling me or any other adult what we may not sniff, snort, inhale, ingest, take sublingually, take intra-rectally, take intra vaginally, inject subQ/ID/IM/IV, or otherwise introduce into our own bodies by what ever means we see fit. If an adult wants to squirt draino up their rectum, it is their choice as an adult. Of course they also get to live with the consequences.

I do not "stigmatize" addiction. So long as they do not do something that puts me or mine - or someone else - at risk I feel no compunction to "correct" their behavior. By the same token I do not believe in giving them a pass for doing something criminal under the influence.

It's not about being hard nosed. It's about expecting people who want to be treated as adults to BE adults or face the consequences.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: I would be all for legalizing all recreational drugs, provided they were only allowed in proscribed areas, and the user was not allowed to leave until passing a drug screen. I believe bars that serve alcohol should be placed under the same limitations, and patrons should not allowed to leave unsupervised until the alcohol is out of their system. A new service could be created, to act as guarantor of negligence, and escort those who imbibe in public to their homes.

Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson
45 months ago: OOTB,

BadCyborg couldn't have phrased it better so I won't repeat the obvious. I will instead ask you for a reply. How do you know that people are so weak minded? You seam to be very certain of your own moral fortitude. Why don't you give others that same benefit of the doubt? Everybody thinks they know themselves until some traumatic cats trophy changes their whole outlook on life. Could it be that you are thinking of these people and not the general public?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: How do I know that people are so weak minded?

How many pill heads do you need me to list? How many weak minded alcoholics who take every excuse as a good reason to get drunk? How many street junkies and and prostitutes that started out just doing recreational drugs? How many old grannies hat will mortgage their house to keep the flow of prescription tranquilizers, sedatives and pain pills flowing? And how many grandchildren that would go into grannie's house and steal all her "medicine"? The list could be thousands long, if you need names.

Dwayne, I've been there. I have friends from the bottom to the top. I'll hang out with anyone that has a story to tell, or a story I can read without being told. I know rich politicians who overdose daily, I know cops who hut meth on their days off, and I know school teachers who will give anything, literally, for their next high.

How do I know? I take the time to really get to know people. I'm a student of humanity.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: I'll ask you the same question I asked BC.

If a man is firing bullets into the air next to your property, should he be allowed to? No noise, he's got a silencer on his gun. Now he's high on crack, imagining someone is trying to rob him. Should he be allowed to shoot his firearm straight up into the air?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: Apples and oranges used to construct a strawman. Discharging a firearm in a residential area except in self defense is universally - and quite properly - proscribed. But that is for the known harm it causes others - i.e. what goes up must come down.

Remember, our individual right to swing our arms ends at our neighbor's nose. Discharging a firearm in a residential area is in no wise analogous to using a substance to alter one's consciousness.

But I will repeat my question from earlier. Exactly who the HELL do you think you are? Who made you the/an arbiter of acceptable behavior.

And also how would YOU like it if Dwayne or I took it upon ourselves to restrict YOUR liberty by telling YOU what you could and could not do?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: Apples and oranges used to construct a strawman. Discharging a firearm in a residential area except in self defense is universally - and quite properly - proscribed. But that is for the known harm it causes others - i.e. what goes up must come down.

Remember, our individual right to swing our arms ends at our neighbor's nose. Discharging a firearm in a residential area is in no wise analogous to using a substance to alter one's consciousness.

But I will repeat my question from earlier. Exactly who the HELL do you think you are? Who made you the/an arbiter of acceptable behavior.

And also how would YOU like it if Dwayne or I took it upon ourselves to restrict YOUR liberty by telling YOU what you could and could not do?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: In my mind, it's apples and apples.

Because it's his yard, his gun, his finger pulling the trigger, and his air that it shoots upward into. The chance you are taking is where the bullet lands. So say it's legal as long as the bullet lands back on his property. No harm, no foul. And say your neighbor Sam has perfect aim, and never misses his own yard. But your neighbor Bill, who also enjoys this newly legal pastime, is crosseyed and has Parkinson's disease. He still has the freedom to shoot, just not to let the bullet land in your skull. So, after you have an extra hole in the top of your skull, the police can come and investigate.

Now you may say it's your body and your mind, and you have every right to rewire it or disable it with whatever chemical concoction you so desire. In my mind, that is the same as shooting a bullet up into the air. Many many bullets may be fired into the air and come harmlessly back to earth, but how many are going to wind up getting an innocent bystander hurt?

If you have a problem with your neighbor shooting straight up into the air, then you have a double standard going. A lot of people on drugs are even more dangerous than a loaded gun.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: None so blind as those who refuse to see.

Once he discharges the weapon he has no control over the projectile. Discharging the weapon puts myself and others at risk.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: And a person impaired by drugs has little or no control over his own actions, thereby posing a risk to the safety and harmony of the public at large.
Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson
45 months ago: BTW: I don't believe that drugs legal or illegal are to be treated carelessly. All I'm asking is that we consider that the benefits of a legal controlled substance far outweigh the benefits of an illegal one.
Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson
45 months ago: That's the problem with your logic OOTB, for every "pill head" , "alcoholic" and "junkie" there are hundreds of thousands who aren't. As I pointed out to you before it is simply irresponsible to lump those who use with those who abuse.

I know it is scary to admit there are drug user walking and working amidst us non users but there are and as I also pointed out before they hold positions of responsibility in society and nobody is the wiser.

Is it morally irresponsible to use drugs? I think it is! I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't want to expose my children to me in such a condition but is my morality enough to determine the choices other adults make? I think not!

That is just as wrong and I wouldn't expose my children to that either. Freedom to make choices goes beyond just civil liberty. It speaks to the very heart of learning what choices to make. Children who live in a stifled environment become reckless adults.

I have friends who drink socially and are very reliable parents who I would trust my children with because they know when and when not to drink but I don't feel safe sending my child to the home of a closet alcoholic whose preaches a morality of public temperance yet who secretly nurses his vice because he feels ashamed due to social stigma.

Such stigma needs to be removed. But that is not possible if the substance being abused remains illegal. People should be allowed to express their desires and fears. That is the only way of successfully discovering and dealing with emerging and long entrenched social problems.
Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson
45 months ago: Perhaps, and this is most telling, that is where all the abusers are coming from. I learned temperance and responsibility because my role models willingly and voluntarily refrained from intoxicants. Some of my peers were not as lucky. They had drug abusers for role models and so many of them fell prey. Even so though some still learned to refrain.
Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson
45 months ago: As for your question,

What do you mean, should he be allowed? People arm themselves and intoxicate themselves legally or illegally daily. Your fictitious scenario will likely happen somewhere in the US tomorrow if not today and no law will prevent it from happening. What laws do are free or tie up the channels of action. Let's say the person from your scenario lives in a Nanny state where the intoxicant of his choice is illegal and using a gun with a silencer is also illegal. What will happen to him if he uses his gun in self defense while intoxicated? Chances are if there is evidence and a good prosecutor that he will end up in jail for using a fire arm under the influence. Not very different from a drunk driver who gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone. The car according to the court is a deadly weapon. Unfair you might say since it was self defense but this scenario under such a circumstance takes a turn for the worst because such an injustice would not have an avenue for redress. The law would paint him as a criminal because he hurt someone while breaking the law.

This is much different when the law has not criminalized gun ownership or recreational drug use. We are encouraged to have designated drivers when we are going to drink. Why is such an idea no longer valid for those who own guns? One can own a gun and know enough to keep it under lock and key with a designated key holder while we he is intoxicated, no? How is one drug different from another when they all impair on some level? Your argument only works when you somehow segregate intoxicants as more or less harmful. All intoxicants impair not just some.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: An eloquent non-answer.

Your neighbor shoots his gun into the air every day. Do you

A) Recognize he has the right to do as he wishes with his own property.

B) Ask him to stop.

C) Report him to the authorities.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: I'm going to tell the bastard to knock it off and if his the muzzle of his weapon so much as STARTS moving in my direction I'm going shoot him and keep shooting him until he stops.

I have no desire to take anyone's life. That is why I would never shoot to kill. I shoot to stop. I aim for his breast bone on a line between his nipples but my intention is not to kill him; only to stop him . There are a whole host of situations under which the use of deadly force is completely justified under Texas law and I am well familiar with all of them. I also know how to write a report.

BTW I also use 3rd generation defensive ammunition. Even at close range it is highly unlikely that the projectile will exit the target. I do not wish to harm someone down range.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: So you would also recommend shooting a drug user when he gets behind the wheel?
Or when he comes over to your house at three in the morning, buck naked, because he can hear the walls talking to him?
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: If he comes into my house and does not leave I just might shoot him. My house is secure when I go to bed. If someone is in my house after dark absent my invitation, they are not there for a social call. Castle Law and Texas Penal Code chapter 9 give me the right to shoot someone on my property after sundown for as little as criminal mischief.

I don't know what he "hears" or doesn't. Best he not be in my house at 0200 without my invite. I sleep with a loaded, cocked Glock 22 just under my bed. I keep enough lights on in the main part of the house (I basically have no hallways) to easily silhouette someone coming into my bedroom.

I would not shoot anyone unless they were presenting a clear and present danger to myself, my family or a 3rd party.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
44 months ago:
So you would also recommend shooting a drug user when he gets behind the wheel?

Are you normally dense or just being obtuse? I wouldn't shoot them behind the wheel at all. I would, however, prosecute them to the limit of the law - both civil as well as criminal - for any proscribed actions they committed under the influence.

I already answered the part about someone coming into my house uninvited.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
44 months ago: "...if his the muzzle of his weapon so much as STARTS moving in my direction I'm going shoot him and keep shooting him until he stops."

Your words, not mine.
Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson
45 months ago: Thank you! Here is another one.

D) He has commited a crime and should be reported or he has not and should not.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago:
Dwayne Johnson

If it's that simple, has he committed a crime? If so, then why is it a crime? Danger to himself and others? The potential for an undesirable result? Remember, it's his property, his body doing the shooting, his mind directing the body to point the gun.

BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: The crime is the act of discharging a firearm upward in a residential area. I don't care if someone puts himself at risk. When they discharge the weapon they put OTHERS at risk. THAT'S the criminal act. The required level of culpable mental state is simple negligence but if higher levels of culpability can be proven by preponderance of evidence then the severity of punishment can and rightly should be increased.
BadCyborg
BadCyborg
San Antonio, TX
45 months ago: Once more for OOTB and others would legislate what adults may or may not consume:
Who do you think you are? Who made you an arbiter of acceptable behavior?

Kindly tell me that?

Please answer this important question.

Would YOU like it if Dwayne or I took it upon ourselves to restrict YOUR liberty even if it was in the name of protecting you from yourself?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
45 months ago: I'm no trying to protect anyone from themselves. I say let the junkies go to a facility where they can junk themselves to death, and get the addict genes out of the gene pool.

I'm more concerned with protecting myself and my family from them. Same as you not wanting your neighbor to shoot up into the air.
Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne Johnson
45 months ago: OOTB,

You and I both know what is the difference between criminal and dangerous behavior, don't we? But for the sake of argument lets say we don't. Criminal behavior is behavior that is against the law. But that does not mean that such behavior is dangerous. Dangerous behavior is not always regulated by law and thus people do dangerous things all the time legally. So you tell me should his behavior be criminal and if so how much of it? Don't get me wrong, I get your logic. He is doing something reckless and thus should be stopped. But let me ask you another question, at what point does his behavior become reckless?

1) Is it when he bought the gun?
2) Is it when he bought the ammunition?
3) Is it when he loaded the gun?
4) Is it when he bought the crack?
5) Is it when he encountered the robber?
6) Is it when he got high?
7) Is it when he shoots the gun in the air (as a warning?)
8) Is it when he shoots the robber? (because that makes more sense than shooting up in the air?

Look at each question and you will notice a pattern. Reckless behavior is not an easy thing to define. That's why harming others has to be the definition beca7use otherwise think about all the personal freedoms you are infringing upon. BTW: Dio you also assume that if he was not high that he would not shoot up into the air? Drugs may or may not be an influence on his choice just like his mood that day may or may not be an influence. Should we out law moods too?
English Lion
English Lion
44 months ago: Dwayne if drugs were legalised alot of people would be addicts,they then cant live without there drug of choice,And would do anything to get it,whether it be driving a car,robbing a house or killing people when high.

an addicts moods have more highs and lows than "normal clean people" so when they are nice and high and have everything they want thats fine for them but what about the lows when they steal money,rob people or drive high and kill innocent people.

I think we should send all our junkies to one place and let them all rob eachother and let them put up with there moods that are sometimes uncontrolable.
These are a few of the simple reasons why most recreational drugs are frowned upon and will always br frowned upon.
Carefull what ya wish for as you might end up with people jacking up in your street and needles everywhere
shardster
shardster
Canada
22 months ago: *Former President JFK was addicted to Amphetamines (speed freak) at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, and he managed to avoid nuclear war.

A lot of people have been addicts, are addicts, and will be addicts regardless of any draconian laws pushed into place by lobbies & special interest groups for the purpose of profit and control. If drugs were legalized; a reduction in crime would logically follow, and not an increase in crime. When drug addicts commit crimes to buy drugs, they do it because the prices of drugs are vastly over-inflated (ex. a gram of PURE cocaine in a small Canadian city = ~$100 vs. $2 in Colombia ) to compensate for the extreme risk of incurred legal penalty taken by manufacturers / importers / traffickers. Once legalized, a days supply of cocaine (1 pure gram for a heavy user) would likely cost about the same as a pack of a cigarettes. Rarely does one see someone robbing a house, or killing people for a pack of cigarettes.

Government statistical data has shown for decades, that drug prohibition contributes more to crime than it prevents. It also contributes to poverty by giving non-violent offenders permanent criminal records, ensuring they can never obtain a decent paying job. Poverty breeds poverty, and more crime. In Canada, it costs about $113,000 per year to jail an inmate. As you can imagine, the cost for a drug treatment program is exponentially lower than this.

Of course there will be negatives that will result from legalizing drugs. Unfortunately, there are negative sides to most things in life. One cannot cease to manufacture kitchen knives, because people will inevitably use them to harm someone else, or themselves.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
22 months ago:
Ever heard of the Bay of Pigs Fiasco?
44 months ago: I think that OOTB and EL, have it right...

... in addition there isn't a drug or alcoholic beverage that has been proven "safe" and regulated that hasn't been a scourge on society; furthermore all politicians seem to have indulged legally or illegally buy the results of what we see... open up this legal "Pandora's box" and enjoy the party!

Sit down with the pres and do a joint... and let the world go to hell! Doesn't any one consider anymore "where we are going... and why we are in this hand-basket?" Talk about morals or ethics all day if you want... but open your eyes to the collateral damage! None so blind as those who refuse to see... Amen.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.