Guns and drugs

It has come to my attention that more than a few people support less restrictions on drugs but also more restrictions on guns. Of these people, most would agree that the war on drugs is not only a failure due to lack of enforcibility, but also a source of much instability, corruption and authoritarianism in our society.

To these people, a simple question: why do you think a 'war on guns' would be any different? What makes you think the same black market dynamics, supply and demand and the will of people to get what they want regardless of laws, and government and corporations eagerness to capitalize on the control monopoly in that market, will not result in an equally corrupt and destabilizing program?

Consider the following before your response:
-guns are not harder to smuggle than drugs
-guns are not harder to make than most drugs
-there is just as much demand for guns in the US as there is for drugs
-like drugs, there is much money to made selling guns
-(side point not necessarily relevent to the discussion, but potentially- the same bureaucratic and undemocratic arbitrary 'catch-22' tax stamp regulations that were used to build the precedent to restrict drugs were used to thusly to restrict guns)

The moral/ethical arguments of restrictions are immaterial if we cannot first demonstrate that restrictions can be effectively implimented. So demonstrate away...

Also, in anticipation of a lack of responses- to those of you who support the war on drugs but claim gun control is unenforcible- what is your logic for this position?

 

After all Prohibition in the 20's was such a success...

 

I look at it the other way around. First demonstrate that there is a moral or ethical rationale for trying to ban or restrict a thing and then determine if its possible and that the consequences of whatever actions are taken in that direction aren't worse than the "problem". Trying to find an effective way of banning drugs or guns before determining that such action should be taken is like trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. First answer the question "Why", then start looking at the "How".

I haven't yet seen a valid rationale for government restrictions on drugs or guns but there are mountains of evidence showing the harm caused by governments attempting those things.

 

wow. 43 views and 0 attempts to answer the question...

 

For some reason, government always seem to focus on the goods instead of the person dealing in them.

For guns- we treat a stolen gun (which is highly likely to be used in crime) in the same way as we do a TV. If it's less than the threshold that divides grand larceny and petty theft (and it usually is) there is no active investigation of the theft at all- it's recorded, filed and ignored. This is a major enabler of gun use by criminals; a gun theft should be recognized as far more important.

The 50 year war on drugs too could be dealt with by a simple approach- take the profit out of it. Cartels would be DOA in nothing flat; profit is their only motivation. We already know that telling people not to do drugs doesn't work well- so what if we accepted they will until they are ready to quit, and we set up a controlled source to provide drugs at cost, that would also allow us to identify the addicts and provide recovery programs, eliminate the many criminal acts associated with drug addicts and dealers, stop the cutting of drugs with poisons such as fentalyl. All in one step, dramatically reducing enforcement, court and prison costs at the same time- which would more than fund the program.

There are always options that will work if you can get people to open their minds and consider the entire issue.

 

I don't see how the two are comparable, they're entirely different prospects. Even if someone's positions on the two areas appear to be in opposition (in either direction), the reasoning behind the two will still be very different. Also, the concepts of "restrictions" are very different; drugs are generally restricted by being simply illegal for anyone to possess, buy or sell while guns are generally restricted by who can legally possess, buy and sell them and related procedures that need to be followed.

 

One has to have a background check done each time one buys a firearm from a licensed gun dealer, so lets license drug dealers, tax the hell out of them, and require a background check on every buyer each time they want to purchase narcotics..

 

Such would ultimately not work as is claimed, as whatever legal standard of illicit narcotic substance would be legalized in an attempt to combat the cartels, would be of a weaker strength and produce lackluster results when compared to what is acquired from the illicit sources.

Perhaps it is finally time for the society of the united states to experience the full, overwhelming weight and cost of their desire to see illicit substances made legal for recreational use, and comprehend just what they are asking for. As those indulging in such substances die off in large numbers through overdosing, and left to decay where others must walk through their daily lives, the significance of their decisions will be made quite clear to them. No one will be able to claim ignorance, and that they had no idea of just how dangerous the use of such substances was. Eventually there will be no one left to become addicted or die of overdoses, and the matter will solve itself. That is ultimately what is desired, is it not?

If individuals wish to knowingly engage in reckless and criminal behavior, they will suffer the consequences of their actions one way or another. They are obviously being done no favors by their government fighting so hard to keep them alive through prohibitions and regulations, so perhaps it is time for a change of pace, and the consequences of their decisions made as plain as day. When children have to see their parents, siblings, and friends laying dead in the streets and on sidewalks as their bodies decompose while others have to walk over them, they will understand the true societal cost of the use of illicit substances. They will no longer question what is wrong with the recreational use of illicit substances, as they will understand why such narcotics were prohibited in the first place.

If the public does not wish to accept that there are certain substances that should not be used, then allowing them to experience the folly of their decisions is the most logical course of action. The more the matter is resisted and fought, the more they are glamorized and desired by the public. It would be the most logical course of action to engage in, seeing as how everything else has failed.

 

Looking from that perspective the government should not be involved in smoking, vaping, motorcycle safety, automobile safety, aircraft safety, grocery product labeling, prescription drug safety, environmental safety, endangered species safety or anything else that restricts citizens from doing acts which are not criminal acts. Let all of that just flow, along with the drugs and the guns.

Just because something kills people is no reason for the government to get involved. Let the meth flow, let the meth flow, let Boeing alone to grow.

 

This is why many of us on the right support the legalization of ALL drugs.

This would eliminate most gang and cartel violence, save billions of dollars to taxpayers and allow a reduction in the needs for law enforcement, prisons and courts. Prohibition spawned organized crime, which still exists today. Eliminating criminal penalties for drug possession, regardless of the drug, would put a huge dent in the income of crime organizations.

The first couple years would be somewhat Darwinian, with thousands dying of overdoses, of course. But eventually this would be reduced to become similar to the 8-10 percent of people who are prone to alcoholism.

With all the taxpayer savings states could offer free, quality rehab clinics to allow those who wish to detox to do so.

Along with this, of course: leave our guns alone and quit attacking the Second Amendment...

 

The proposed solutions however are what I'm comparing, because those are the same: use bureacracy and law to restrict the legality of access, oiow, penalize people for accessing without permission. It doesnt work for drugs, why would it work for guns?

 

And I understand your point well. However we have a great number of people who think it is our duty to save people from themselves, and the way it's done usually enables rather than saves. i doubt it would be possible to raise enough public support for your approach (or mine) to get it passed.

I do think that the cartels could be crippled or destroyed however by knocking the profit out of illicit drugs. That's something based on hard economics. Exactly how it could be done would depend greatly on what approach could be sold to the public- and of course the public always wants easy answers that don't bring them any discomfort. The "no pain- no gain" concept is not popular, because somebody is always promoting an "easy" cure for everything.

 

That is as it should be, except in cases where the actions of the individual infringe on the rights of others. In those cases it would be appropriate to have a system that protects individual rights and makes the victim whole when their rights are infringed. As an example, product labeling shouldn't be required but if you sell food that makes others sick you would be subject to lawsuits that would put you out of business and indebted to your victims to remunerate them for their suffering. Another example is environmental safety; You should be able to do whatever you want to your own property but if what you do on your property degrades my property or injures me, I would have a cause of action to bring suit against you to make me whole

For any "Crime" that only affects the persons engaging voluntarily in the activity, prohibition or restriction exceeds the legitimate authority of the government and should be ended.

 

You can't completely remove the profit from a product that is in demand but you can remove the premium added to the profit caused by the cost of smuggling and other criminal enterprises necessary to maintain a black market. A free market with multiple competitors would reduce profits enough to drive the criminal enterprises out of business while improving product quality.

The anticipated death and destruction from such a change would probably not happen for a couple of reasons. First, much of the short term danger of using illegal drugs is caused by poor quality and no consistent labeling. A heroin user buying from an illegal source has no way of knowing if the stuff is cut with baby powder, corn starch or strichnine, of what strength or purity it is. That means every dose is potentially an overdose, some other unknown poison or maybe nothing at all. Buying heroin from a legal vendor gives the buyer much more recourse to know what he's buying and to holding the seller accountable for bad product.

It might be worthwhile looking at the effect drug decriminalization had in Portugal since 2001. Generally I think the effect was positive.

 

[

 

To remove the profit it would need to be sold at cost of production. While that may still not be as low as a cartel could produce it, it would cut their margin 90%. That's enough. It's probably irrelevant anyway, because the public can't adjust their mindset to allow things like that. They would rather beat their head against the wall of righteousness indefinitely.

 

First you must question why it is soooo important to the left that America be disarmed. That is their ultimate goal in regards to gun control and I think the reason for this is fairly obvious as it is in all of their machinations. That said, it can and will be implemented if the Democrat party ever seizes power of all three branches of government. I would put it at the top of the list of things they would do once they were in such power. Just think about the Democrat party and what it has been doing since Trump got elected. These are not the actions of a political party that opposes another party's policies, those things matter little to them. These are the actions of people with a maniacal lust for power and once they have it they will stop at nothing to keep it. Just look at all of the failed dry runs during the Obama years when they didn't have a lock on all three branches. These people are Communists.

Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) Has worked closely with the Communist Party USA since at least 1993. A self-described “Alinskyite.” Traveled to Cuba in 2015.
Ami Bera (D-CA) Has used Communist Party USA campaign volunteers in 2010, 2014 and 2016. Also close to Democratic Socialists of America.
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Very close to several key Communist Party USA allies in San Francisco in the 1970s and ’80s. Also some involvement with Democratic Socialists of America.
Barbara Lee (D-CA) Lee has been close to the Communist Party USA for decades. In the 1990s she was a leading member of the Communist Party spin-off Committees of Correspondence. Has been to Cuba more than 20 times.
Ro Khanna (D-CA) Very close to Democratic Socialists of America.
Salud Carbajal (D-CA) Long history with Democratic Socialists of America members.
Judy Chu (D-CA) Was heavily involved with the now-defunct pro-Beijing Communist Workers Party in the 1970s and ’80s. Still works closely with former members today. China’s best friend in the US Congress.
Raul Ruiz (D-CA) Worked closely with Workers World Party members in Massachusetts in the late 1990s.
Karen Bass (D-CA) Was actively involved with the Marxist-Leninist group Line of March in the 1980s. Still works closely with former members. Mentored by a leading Communist Party USA member. Also close to Democratic Socialists of America and some Freedom Road Socialist Organization members. Has been to Cuba at least 4 times.
Maxine Waters (D-CA) Long history with the Communist Party USA. Also ties to some Communist Workers Party and Workers World Party fronts. Has employed staff members from Democratic Socialists of America and League of Revolutionary Struggle.
Joe Courtney (D-CT) Has worked closely with several Communist Party USA leaders.
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Has worked extremely closely with the Communist Party USA for many years. Traveled to Cuba in 2014.
Jim Himes (D-CT) His 1988 thesis “The Sandinista Defense Committees and the Transformation of Political Culture in Nicaragua” was a sympathetic portrayal of Marxist government’s civilian spy network. Has worked closely with one Communist Party USA front group.
Kathy Castor (D-FL) Has worked closely with Cuba and pro-Castro organizations to open US trade with the communist island.
John Lewis (D-GA) Worked closely with the Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA in the 1960s. In recent years has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members.
Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members through her political career. Ties to some Filipino-American “former communists.” Worked with Communist Party USA affiliated former Congressman Dennis Kucinich to defend Soviet-Russian puppet Syrian leader Bashar-al-Assad.
Bobby Rush (D-IL) Former leader of the Maoist-leaning Black Panther Party. Has worked closely with Communist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America. Has traveled to Cuba twice.
Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-IL) Has worked closely with the Communist Party USA for nearly 40 years.
Danny Davis (D-IL) Was a member of Democratic Socialists of America in the mid 2000s. Has worked closely with the Communist Party USA since the 1980s. Also close to Committees of Correspondence in the 1990s.
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Was a member of Democratic Socialists of America in the 1980s and has continued to work closely with the organization. Has also worked closely with some Communist Party USA members.
Dave Loebsack (D-IA) has worked closely with Socialist Party USA and
Democratic Socialists of America members for many years.
John Yarmuth (D-KY) has worked with Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism members. Traveled to Cuba in 2011.
Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has worked closely with Democratic Socialists of America for many years.
Jim McGovern (D-MA) has supported Latin American socialist and revolutionary groups for 20 years. Has traveled to Cuba at least three times.
Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) Has been endorsed by Democratic Socialists of America. Worked with Freedom Road Socialist Organization front groups and with the pro-Beijing Chinese Progressive Association in Boston.
Andy Levin (D-MI) Close to Democratic Socialists of America for at least a decade.
Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) Democratic Socialists of America member.
Betty McCollum (D-MN) Close ties to communist Laos. Has worked with Democratic Socialists of America members. Traveled to Cuba in 2014.
Ilhan Omar (D-MN) Supported by Democratic Socialists of America- controlled groups Our Revolution and National Nurses United. Reportedly a self-described “Democratic Socialist.”
Bennie Thompson (D-MS) Was close to the Communist Party USA for many years. Also supported one Communist Workers Party organization. Traveled to Cuba in 2000 and worked with Fidel Castro to train leftist American medical students in Cuba.
William Lacy Clay (D-MO) Has worked with Communist Party USA fronts for many years.
Greg Meeks (D-NY) Has traveled to Cuba at least 3 times. Was a strong supporter of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
Grace Meng (D-NY) Very close to the pro-Beijing Asian Americans for Equality. Was also active in a radical Korean-American organization.
Nydia Velasquez (D-NY) Close ties to Democratic Socialists of America. Welcomed Fidel Castro to Harlem in 1995.
Yvette Clarke (D-NY) Addressed a Workers World Party rally in 2005. A close ally of a prominent Democratic Socialists of America member. Traveled to Cuba in 2007.
Jerry Nadler (D-NY) Was a member of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee in the 1970s and was involved with Democratic Socialists of America in the ’80s and ’90s.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) A member of Democratic Socialists of America.
Jose Serrano (D-NY) Close ties to the Communist Party USA and Democratic Socialists of America. Was a strong supporter of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) Some connection to Workers World Party and Freedom Road Socialist Organization. Also close to the “former” communist led Moral Mondays movement.
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Ties to Democratic Socialists of America. Traveled to Cuba in 2002.
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) Ties to Democratic Socialists of America.
Steve Cohen (D-TN) Close ties to Memphis Socialist Party USA members. Traveled to Cuba in 2011.
Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) Elected to the Texas State House with Communist Party USA support. Works closely with a major communist-influenced organization.
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) Long relationship with the Communist Party USA. Traveled to Cuba at least twice.
Marc Veasey (D-TX) Very close relationship with the Communist Party USA.
Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) Has been involved with Democratic Socialists of America since the 1980s.
Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) Has been involved with Freedom Road Socialist Organization-connected groups for many years.
Mark Pocan (D-WI) Close to some Democratic Socialists of America activists. Long-time active supporter of Colombian revolutionary movements.
Gwen Moore (D-WI) Has been mentored by leading Democratic Socialists of America and Communist Party USA members.
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) Former Young Peoples Socialist League member. Long connection to Democratic Socialists of America.


“The goal of socialism is communism.” Vladimir Lenin

The revolution needs the enemy. .. The revolution needs for its development its antithesis’ … And if enemies were lacking, they had to be fabricated …” Fidel Castro. That enemy now is Donald Trump. He is the enemy because in 2016 he crushed every hope and plan they've been making for sixty years.

 

Yes, I understand. However, proving such intent to the average Dem is not currently possible. They just think the world would be better if we were nicer to eachother and guns are mean. Im hoping to appeal to those still capable of logic- that regardless their intent, stricter gun control will waste their money, further militarize and militantize the police and fail to provide the returns in social stability they seek, just like the war on drugs has done.

 

I’m still not convinced they’re the same beyond that very broad view though. The specifics and details would be different because the things themselves are very different. If you can find someone who is specifically proposing the exact same policies for drugs and guns, I’ll join you in questioning the validity of their ideas in one or both of them but I’m not convinced you can. Someone making some kind of argument for somehow reducing the laws against drugs and also making some kind of argument for somehow increasing laws against guns aren’t proposing the same policies though.

There is a valid point in general about legislative and regulatory restrictions on anything generally can’t be implemented with perfect results but that doesn’t only apply to drugs and guns and isn’t in itself a reason not to have any restrictions. We can’t eliminate harm but we can seek to reduce it and for different kinds of harm, some methods to reduce it will be similar and some will be very different.

 

I've provided examples of how they're the same from an enforcement perspective. Can you provide examples of how they're different?

 

Never try to snort an Uzi.

Tools vs consumables, legitimately manufactured vs illicitly produced, largely domestic (or legal imports) vs largely illegally imported, greatest risk to others vs greatest risk to self...

You've also missed the aspect that an argument for reduced regulation on drugs and increased regulation on guns still doesn't necessarily mean the two sets of regulations would be the same. We have regulations on driving, drinking alcohol and sexual intercourse but they're all very different regulations.

 

I'll assume thats a joke since it has no impact on enforcibility of restrictions.

Also has no impact on enforcibility of restrictions.

If drugs were decriminalized, they would be legally manufactured domestically like guns. If guns are banned, they will be illicitly produced and illegally imported, like drugs.

Also has no impact on enforcibility of restrictions.

So propose how you would regulate guns in a way that would work better than how our attempts to regulate drugs have largely failed

 

Who said anything about banning guns? Your question was about the level of restrictions on drugs and guns moving together. That would mean neither are banned but both are regulated.

 

To require that a good be sold at cost would require government restriction of the market and would result in subsidies to keep the producers in business. Alternatively forcing the price of a good to be no more than the cost of production without subsidizing the producers would cause all legal producers to go out of business and the black market to resume. A free market with multiple vendors/producers would insure competition, which would promote low profit margins and higher quality with no government intervention necessary.

I propose that a true free market in any good would also create a secondary market that would critique products and inform consumers. Businesses like Consumer Reports and Underwriters Laboratory would do a better job than government agencies at reporting on these products and companies, leaving the market free and obviating the need for any government organizations.

 

I'm talking about the distribution method being a government agency. They already control the pharmaceutical industry- this would need to be a branch of that, from production to final distribution. This is not free enterprise. It's an option, an idea of how the government could actually bring about enough control of the situation to do some effective good, and the elimination of all the criminal aspects that cartel drugs foster.

It won't happen, because we have too many people who prefer a comfortable convenient answer that won't work over an uncomfortable one that does work.