[ASLplease]

Some people have suggested that if you are in favor of firearm ownership yet against the legalization of marijuana, then you are inconsistant with you logic. Actually, I've heard the word ' hypocrite' come up more than a few times.

Well, I disagree (I'll think of a reason later.)

Here's your chance to state your case before someone else does.

[ASLplease]

For starters, I see legalized gun ownership as a way of preventing citizens from being exploited.

I also see the regulation of drug, food additives, and pharmaceuticals, as a way of preventing citizens from being exploited.

[ridenrain]

I got into the hobby of making my own beer because I was pissed at the ever increasing taxes. It's a simple hobby and very popular. While I do fear that marijuana can also be a gateway drug, I can see no reason why people can't grow pot for their own use.
I would welcome it as long as it followed the same legal requirements: Personal use only and sale is forbidden.

[Zipperfish]

Generally the line goes that those in favour of less regualtion of guns also favour smaller governmentin general. Thta puts you in the minority, because you're in favour of less gun regulation but more government.

Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't call it hypocritical. Who the hell isn't a hypocrite. WE all hold on to cometing ideas simultaneously. AS Walt Whitman put it

Quote:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

I am in favour of less gun regulation, and I am in favour of the continued criminalization of the so-called "hard drugs." However, all the evidecne I've seen indicates to me that pot is not a risk to society at large, and therefore should, in a free country, be left up to the choice of the individual.

[Akhenaten]

I favour decriminalization, not legalization. You get the best of both worlds this way, and it's the same model as Amsterdam. Basically possession is lowered to a misdemenor - no criminal record - no international database, and you are allowed to smoke it in specified areas (including private residences). However it is still considered a 'controlled substance' which allows the state to intervene in cases of abuse. I don't want to see people smoking pot in public parks where children are any more than I'd want to see people drinking in a public park, but I also don't want to see people get severely punished, or marked as a criminal for smoking it.

[ridenrain]

The problem I see with decriminalzation is it dosen't change anything for the growers. Their still growing an "illegal" product, exporting >90% to the US for huge money, and that supports organized crime. If every Julian, Randy & Bubbles could grow their own weed, there would be little market for organized crime.

[Akhenaten]

If it doesn't change anything for growers who intend to sell to the US then I don't see the problem. If we make a domestic change to this issue that doesn't make it right for us to dump pot into the US. We need to respect their right to not wanting it in their country. This is why Marc whats-his-name is rightfully in legal trouble: not because he distributed pot here, but because he sent it (in the form of seeds) to the US. He has no right to do that and little right to expect us to protect him from his own selfish actions.

Quote:

If every Julian, Randy & Bubbles could grow their own weed, there would be little market for organized crime.

Meh. I think we have different perceptions on what it takes to grow decent bud these days. i haven't smoked pot consitantly for almost 20 years now, so I'm outta the loop, but even back then the 'hydro' was genetically enhanced and it's far away from what you can get with simple grow bulbs etc. In other words anyone can grow pot but it actually takes skill, commitment and money to grow 'sellable' weed, at least the kind of weed people buy a ton of.

[ridenrain]

The problem with pot is organized crime and decriminalizing dosen't change anything.
The only thing that's going to reduce Canadians selling pot into the states is:
1) The US growing their own
2) Canada punishing smugglers to the same extent as those caught in the US.

The seeds or plants could be sold just like beer or wine kits. Lights and water are just the same and people would be happy because they know the quality and purity of their products. Something that can never be assured when your dealing with products made by organized criminals.

[Curtman]

ridenrain wrote:

The seeds or plants could be sold just like beer or wine kits. Lights and water are just the same and people would be happy because they know the quality and purity of their products. Something that can never be assured when your dealing with products made by organized criminals.

Most of all, it could be done safely. You cannot hire an electrician out of the Yellow Pages to wire up your lights right now, so you end up with a bunch of shady "contractors" who set up grow ops. They have no concern for electrical codes, and that is where the danger of having a grow op in your neighborhood comes from.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease wrote:

Some people have suggested that if you are in favor of firearm ownership yet against the legalization of marijuana, then you are inconsistant with you logic. Actually, I've heard the word ' hypocrite' come up more than a few times.

Well, I disagree (I'll think of a reason later.)

Here's your chance to state your case before someone else does.

My ears are burning and yes you are a hypocrite if you vilify the government for taking away gun rights while upholding that very same government for taking away the basic rights of an individual to smoke pot if he wants to.

You, as well as a few others seem to be taking the position that the government is here to legislate your morality and that's just what opposition to drugs is, a morality position no different then prostitution, adultery, SSM, premarital sex, etc.

The case for legalizing drugs is simple. I'm an adult and I can decide this for myself. It is not the governments decision to make. Guns however are weapons designed to kill so its quite obvious why control is needed but the same principle applies. Responsible adults can choose to use them and yes they should be licensed and yes they should be registered. They are a manufactured good and as such are justifiably controlled by the government. Drugs or at least the production and sale of would also be controlled by the government. Sure if you want to be someone who grows his own pot for his own use then more power to you. Want the same freedom as a gun owner? Then you had better be able to smith your own metals and build your own guns and ammo. You can't? Then guess what. You are purchasing from a manufacturing plant and as such are subject to government laws. So too would be people buying drugs from a store no different then buying alcohol.

Want to own a gun? I want to smoke a joint. You support my rights and I'll support yours.

Now to (yet again) destroy ridens moronic argument concerning drugs and gang violence I'll (yet again) point out that all these gangs use guns and all those guns were built and manufactured legally then sold legally. The fact that that so many of them end up in criminal hands doesn't seem to have him attacking the complete lack of control and accountability by gun manufacturers does it?

Legalizing takes away profit from the gangs and minimizes their profit and hence their reason for being in business. It worked in Amsterdam (until demand greatly exceeded supply) and it worked in Portugal. In fact it worked so well they are both models of what to do.

Just as the end of prohibition saw the end of illegal booze runners and the violence so to would the end of drug prohibition do the same?

"but but but the US will still fuel the illegal market". It might but so what? We already have that and Canada is its own country. We make the laws not the US. It will lower at least some of the violence and I believe we'd be the example that so many in the US are looking to in their fight to decriminalize/legalize drugs. Already lots of states are moving towards that end.

[ridenrain]

So your for legalization and not decriminalization?

While I'd agree that even the most illegal handgun in Toronto was legally made. There were a number of firearm stores that "lost" firearms or legally sold them to mules who then broke the law by taking those legal firearms accross state and international boundaries. One way or another, once they fell into the hands of criminals, they became illegal guns.

[Thanos]

1) I'll indulge my inner fascist by saying that I don't believe in gun control, but that I believe in people control, in that there are certain types of persons who should never be allowed to possess any firearm at all. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that only those with no histroy of mental disturbance or a criminal record should be allowed to posess firearms. Anyone with any sort of blotch on the record is banned for life from ownership and any violation of the ban should be met with the harshest punishment possible, up to and including a lifetime in prison for the guilty.

2) I could care less if pot were legalized. I find it laughable however that any of the pro-legalization zealots actually believe that the organized crime and gangster figures in control of the current major grow operations are going to happily submit themselves to concepts like taxation or government-regulated quality control of thier product. This is the sort of fantasizing that only people who've smoked too much dope allow themselves to indulge in. As for right now, though, I'd go with full decriminalization for the individual possessor. I'd also put a stop right now to the governments silly attempt to grow their own watered down and useless product for the purpose of medical marijuana use. It's a black hole of taxpayer money. I'd also immediately end any sort of enforcement activity in Canada that even remotely resembles the insane War On Drugs from the United States. All that idiocy was started by a truly loathsome figure in Richard Nixon, and any other nation of conscience should have nothing to do with it on that basis alone.

3) I firmly oppose any legalization of other drugs and narcotics such as cocaine, heroin, or meth. These drugs eat up people alive and I find that it would be an offensive and deeply anti-moral act for any government to attempt to legalize and then tax these substances as they simultaneously and completely destroy the people who get fooled or trapped into using them. I also find it completely repugnant and hypocritical that some people will claim a bogus "my choice" argument in choosing to use these drugs and then demand for themselves all the help the government can provide once they find themselves turning into hopeless addicts. So I not only support lengthy prison sentences for smugglers and traffickers, I also support imprisonment and forced rehabilitation for chronic users and addicts who no longer have any self-control. If addicts are going to fall back on the state to support them when they bottom out then the state has the interest and obligation to step in and save them from themseles, as well as to put a stop to the incredible amounts of damage these people do others through crime and the harm they do to their own families.

[DerbyX]

So what? The reason that gun control is useless by us is because of the massive availability of guns in the US and that is because there is not even a modicum of an attempt at keeping guns out of the wrong hands (ignoring the fact I keep posting many many examples of people who you claim are the right gun owners who suddenly kill people).

If you think smoking and alcohol should be legal then so should drugs and if you think people are responsible enough to own firearms then they are responsible enough to make the decision to use drugs if they want.

BTW, I wear a lab coat at work.

[ASLplease]

interesting. I think this discussion requires some thought and some time. Don't be surprised if I necro it every few days for awhile. have a good day.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Thanos wrote:

I find it laughable however that any of the pro-legalization zealots actually believe that the organized crime and gangster figures in control of the current major grow operations are going to happily submit themselves to concepts like taxation or government-regulated quality control of thier product. This is the sort of fantasizing that only people who've smoked too much dope allow themselves to indulge in.

Not exactly sure where you got that from. The idea of legalization has nothing to do with getting grow-op owners to pay taxes or submit to quality control. Sounds like someone has been indulging in something here
The point behind legalization and organized crime is, it would take a steady supply of income from them. I have several friends that are big-time dealers and NONE of them want to see pot legalized. Why? Because they would be out a LOT of money.
Despite the government taxing it, it would still be cheaper than from street sources. Don't forget, street drugs have a built in "Danger of doing business cost". I'll site an example. When the Liberals decided to decriminalize pot, prices actually dropped. After the current government moved to re-criminalize it, the prices went right back up again, only higher.
If the gov't took control and licenced growers, like they do with brewers and distillers, and regulated it, and it was priced out say, 25%cheaper than from street sources, where do you think pot smokers will buy their pot? It would actually be quite easy for "legit" pot to undercut the price of "street" weed.
And if they let people produce a bit their own for personal use, like they do for beer and wine drinkers, well then, where's the harm?