Medical Marijuana card and 2A

PJDiesel said:

Wait..... DUI "kills"?

Click to expand...

Yes of course, and on a daily basis. Actually about one person every 50 minutes around the clock in just the US alone - over 10,000 people each year. And of course that doesn't count the additional victims maimed, crippled, blinded, and otherwise permanently disabled who aren't actually killed.

Are you proposing dropping BAC DUI laws since you flippantly assert DUI doesn't kill?

PJDiesel said:

That's not a function of consuming a drug,..... that's caused by DRIVING.

Guns kill then.

Click to expand...

Yeah, not falling for that non sequitur. You know I never blamed the tool; I blamed the reckless behavior of the person.

And before weed is legalized, certainly for recreational use, I've also called for enforceable roadside tests for THC equivalent of a BAC content of 0.08.

You've avoided addressing any of these issues, and instead support legalization of heroin. I suspect you'll find little support for your position among the innocent American public at large, potential victims all.

I support freedom. I know that's a difficult concept for some,..... (somehow) on a pro-gun forum.

I choose NOT to use heroin. Never seen it in person. I would never associate with someone I knew was a user, of it I would immediately remove myself from a place or situation where I suspected any narcotics were or were being used.


There....there's my stance on any opiates, not sure why it (and apparently "addictive" LSD) are part of the conversation really.

Freedom is not absence of all laws, aka anarchy. I'm sure even you don't support that.

And you've carefully avoided answering my previous challenges: does your definition of freedom include abolition of BAC DUI laws, along with legalization of heroin?

There's enough laws, we need to wind back probably about 60% of what is already being the books.

I believe there should be a blood THC content test or retina scan or the like for intoxication levels.

I've never once said here I think someone should operate a car or machinery under the influence of mind altering substances.

If you want to know what left wing bull5hit artists the fact check organizations are, just take a look at the Snopes on this.
Their entire coverage of firearms issue revolves around setting up a strawman, and knocking down their own strawman, in this case that it is about state law:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cannabis-marijuana-guns/

They then say it is 'unchanging" when in fact the Obama administration had the BATFE change the question.

While I was not a part of this particular discussion, I'd like to offer my own insight. I have little doubt it will be unpopular with a majority of you, but it's what I think. I'm generally game for a rigorous debate that challenges my currently held positions on a given topic.

aray said:

(snip)

Are you proposing dropping BAC DUI laws since you flippantly assert DUI doesn't kill?

Click to expand...

I have said previously on this forum that I would support such a thing. I'm strongly opposed to laws that seek to punish someone for something where there was no victim. A crime in the moral sense requires a victim, otherwise we merely have a crime in the legal sense. That which is moral is not necessarily legal, and vice versa.

To be clear, I don't think for a moment that drinking and driving is a good idea. It is risky behavior that can be empirically shown to contribute to negative outcomes. That said, if someone drinks to significant excess and is able to drive home without contributing to an accident that results in harm to life/property, there is no victim, and therefore no crime (in the moral sense) has been committed. Punishing would-be behavior has no place in a legitimately free society, in my opinion.

Freedom of course requires responsibility, something that is lost on so very many people today. Drinking and driving is not responsible behavior, therefore it should be avoided. Those who choose to act irresponsibly and then victimize someone should pay a very steep price. Suspension of a license and wrist-slap fines don't even begin to approach what I'd impose were I king for a day. Alas, I'm just a guy on the Internet...

If you're still interested in my opinion (and even this assumes you were interested in the first place), I encourage you to view this thread in its entirety: https://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=174901

PJDiesel said:

I support freedom. I know that's a difficult concept for some,..... (somehow) on a pro-gun forum.

I choose NOT to use heroin. Never seen it in person. I would never associate with someone I knew was a user, of it I would immediately remove myself from a place or situation where I suspected any narcotics were or were being used.


There....there's my stance on any opiates, not sure why it (and apparently "addictive" LSD) are part of the conversation really.

Click to expand...

I'm largely of the same opinion. If someone chooses to use drugs and can do so responsibly (and I understand that this is an enormous ask, but bear with me), I have no problem with it in philosophical sense. Practically, with common sense and laws being as they are, I'm removing myself from the people/situation quickly and permanently.

aray said:

Freedom is not absence of all laws, aka anarchy. I'm sure even you don't support that.

Click to expand...

Without going down the rabbit hole on an exact, clinical definition of "freedom," it very well might actually mean that.

Briefly, freedom/responsibility are forever intertwined. They are two sides of the same coin; one cannot have one without the other. Unlimited freedom means the ability to do whatever one wants. While I'm sure I'm among the most libertarian members of this forum, even I will admit that Madison was correct in writing that "f men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

Boondock Saint said:

.

Click to expand...

I like the cut of your jib sir.

Skokie Nazis (the ones I really hate ) approve of the 'freedom can be ugly' mantra.

Some on MDS don't approve.

Most on MDS won't approve of ACTUAL freedom (it's for da' children).

BDS speaks his mind....and makes perfect sense to me!

The large amounts of crime to support habits , and the violence and corruption surrounding the distribution , are primarily caused by their being illegal .

Which is what Delaware (for one of the closest in proximity and most recent examples) is now saying.

Complete waste of time and tax payer money.

Boondock Saint said:

I have said previously on this forum that I would support such a thing. I'm strongly opposed to laws that seek to punish someone for something where there was no victim. A crime in the moral sense requires a victim, otherwise we merely have a crime in the legal sense. That which is moral is not necessarily legal, and vice versa.

That said, if someone drinks to significant excess and is able to drive home without contributing to an accident that results in harm to life/property, there is no victim, and therefore no crime (in the moral sense) has been committed. Punishing would-be behavior has no place in a legitimately free society, in my opinion.

Freedom of course requires responsibility, something that is lost on so very many people today. Drinking and driving is not responsible behavior, therefore it should be avoided. Those who choose to act irresponsibly and then victimize someone should pay a very steep price.

Click to expand...

Very well said I am with you. Dangerous/Irresponsible people, who harm others, should be removed from society for long periods, or permanently.

KevinK said:

I like the cut of your jib sir.

Skokie Nazis (the ones I really hate ) approve of the 'freedom can be ugly' mantra.

Some on MDS don't approve.

Click to expand...

I am a member of the MDS Freedom Caucasus.

PJDiesel said:

I'm not for the legalization of opioids (at all).

I see them as dangerous for ANY use and think unlawful possession should be grounds for mandatory minimums.

I thought you were taking a hard line on Marijuana, I probably mis-read it.

Click to expand...

How about mandatory TREATMENT? Addiction shouldn’t be a criminal offense and treating it as such just drives people in to poverty, further drug use, committing other crimes and so on.

lazarus said:

How about mandatory TREATMENT? Addiction shouldn’t be a criminal offense and treating it as such just drives people in to poverty, further drug use, committing other crimes and so on.

Click to expand...

There more or less is mandatory treatment, "drug" court, withdraw treatment in jail, etc.

I'm for treating the entire thing as a mental health issue. One thing I disagree with most on is the "disease" aspect of it.

I don't use addictive substances for very very simple reasons. I like my family, I like my bank account and assets, like to be debt free and like the freedom to move about as I choose daily.

Nothing more,... nothing less. Heroin could be fully legal and available at Wawa this afternoon, I'll never touch it, not till the day I die.

Biggfoot44 said:

The large amounts of crime to support habits , and the violence and corruption surrounding the distribution , are primarily caused by their being illegal .

Click to expand...

This. Not that European countries are often role models, but many treat drug addiction as a mental health problem and approach it as such. They treat addiction, not criminalize it. It’s one of the likely reasons their crime and murder rates are generally much lower than the US.

It’s not a gun issue. It’s a culture issue. We like to punish people. They like to try to treat why someone is doing something “wrong”.

So, on the "disease" front, BEHAVIOR drives people in to poverty, further drug use and committing other crimes.

I choose not to begin use that will all but undoubtedly lead to addiction.... also a behavioral trait.

PJDiesel said:

There more or less is mandatory treatment, "drug" court, withdraw treatment in jail, etc.

I'm for treating the entire thing as a mental health issue. One thing I disagree with most on is the "disease" aspect of it.

I don't use addictive substances for very very simple reasons. I like my family, I like my bank account and assets, like to be debt free and like the freedom to move about as I choose daily.

Nothing more,... nothing less. Heroin could be fully legal and available at Wawa this afternoon, I'll never touch it, not till the day I die.

Click to expand...

Sure you won’t. But plenty of people will. In many cases it is people who become addicted to opiate pain killers who move on to heroine. Or try something while messed up on something else and become addicted. Or are searching for something to make them feel better when they have a shitty life.

There are plenty of people who can use heroine or opiates and not get addicted. Others are addicted right away. Just like some people become easily addicted to nicotine, or alcohol, gambling, sex, etc. some small percentage of the populace (10-20%) are prone to addiction. Most of the rest isn’t.

It is an actual disease. It isn’t simply a willpower thing. You do have to try something to become an addict and knowing thyself is good. I don’t gamble because I know I am prone to have little self control with it. Sometimes you can dabble, realize it is a bad idea and pull yourself back. The more addictive an activity is, the more dangerous it is to try it. Opiates, they got pushed on tons of people by pharmaceutical companies out to make a buck for any reason.

You get in to an accident and are in incredible pain and your doctor tells you to take some oxy, 99% of people are going to say yes. About 10-15% of those people are going to become addicted. Some large fraction of those addicts will be able to break it. Some won’t. That isn’t behavior.

There is some element of personal responsibility for some people. But plenty, many, maybe even most didn’t choose to go down the path. And what is easy for you or maybe me to recognize the problem and stop it, is completely impossible for others. Or difficult and require help to be able to get off that path.

For disease, do you have depression or anxiety? Did you choose to have depression or anxiety? Bipolar? People with mental health diseases didn’t choose to have them. Most addicts didn’t choose to be addicts and plenty of them didn’t make life choices that resulted in them becoming addicts.

Some did. Some people also made choices in life that pushed them down the path of becoming depressed or anxious.

Agree to disagree.

I can become addicted to just about anything, I'm a true self admitted "addict". Ginger taffy from Amazon (2lb bags toward the end) was my last vice I let myself get involved with.

Exercise, foods, target shooting.

I know better than to EVER take a pill of any sort aside from Ibuprofen. I'll literally just kill myself before I take a "pain killer" of any sort unless it's administered in a hospital setting and I'm off of it prior to coming home. Might as well save everyone the time and money of dealing with me. I've seen very intelligent people run themselves into the ground, all based on behavior and life choices surrounding drugs.

I don't anyone who has just "dabbled" with heroin. They take it, and they're hooked.

That's my understanding of it.