Guns vs Drugs

Goshin said:

View attachment 67147804
View attachment 67147805
View attachment 67147806

Click to expand...

Don't ruffle my feathers, pal.

Fine. I vote for "drugs." Drugs win over guns.

Good day.

If you have a gun you can always get drugs. But if you have drugs you may not be focused enough to get a gun.




(I don't have a point)

MoSurveyor said:

If I can't grow pot or mix up whatever in my basement then where the hell are my property rights?

·
·
·​

I don't think anyone is in favor of drug abuse just like no one is in favor of alcoholism.

Click to expand...

Peter Grimm said:

Who would want guns and drugs to be legal? Great. So we can have people running around armed, high on bath salts. That sounds real smart..... god bless democracy. Our lives are in the hands of idiots.

Didn't anyone follow the Miami zombie story? Sheesh.

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

I guess the concept of making abuse of either item illegal and subject to severe punishments is beyond your comprehension?

Click to expand...

It's easy enough, and relatively free of controversy, to define “abusing” guns. Handling a gun in an unsafe manner, which creates an unreasonable danger to self or others would clearly be such an abuse. So would any unjust use of a gun to threaten or harm one's self or another person. It's really that simple. And the vast majority of uses that are made of the vast majority of guns, are clearly non-abusive.

Drugs are a whole different animal. Their entire purpose is to harm the person who takes them. And by so doing, the person often harms others as well. How does one use drugs in a non-abusive way? The answer, quite clearly, is that one simply does not.

Guns are nearly always ever only used non-abusively.

Drugs are never used non-abusively; they are only ever used abusively. There is no non-abusive use for them.

Clearly, the abusive use of either of these things should be illegal. I have little problem with the mere possession of something being illegal, when that thing has no non-abusive use, and the possession can be taken as prima facie evidence of an intent to abuse it; which is clearly the case with drugs, but not with guns.

Bob Blaylock said:

It's easy enough, and relatively free of controversy, to define “abusing” guns. Handling a gun in an unsafe manner, which creates an unreasonable danger to self or others would clearly be such an abuse. So would any unjust use of a gun to threaten or harm one's self or another person. It's really that simple. And the vast majority of uses that are made of the vast majority of guns, are clearly non-abusive.

Drugs are a whole different animal. Their entire purpose is to harm the person who takes them. And by so doing, the person often harms others as well. How does one use drugs in a non-abusive way? The answer, quite clearly, is that one simply does not.

Guns are nearly always ever only used non-abusively.

Drugs are never used non-abusively; they are only ever used abusively. There is no non-abusive use for them.

Clearly, the abusive use of either of these things should be illegal. I have little problem with the mere possession of something being illegal, when that thing has no non-abusive use, and the possession can be taken as prima facie evidence of an intent to abuse it; which is clearly the case with drugs, but not with guns.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but when drugs are abused, they harm only the guilty. When guns are abused, they harm the innocent.

Bob Blaylock said:

Drugs are never used non-abusively; they are only ever used abusively. There is no non-abusive use for them.

Click to expand...

Sure there is, recreation and relaxation. Are you going to tell me you're a tea total?

Also, how about some of the other points I raised? People easily obtain drugs whether legal or not, so encouraging responsible use/abstinence is far more likely to have a positive outcome than simply forcing it underground (a la prohibition).

Also, do you ever use the "it's just an inanimate object" argument in favor of gun rights? I ask because it applies to drugs too in my opinion.

Peter Grimm said:

Yeah, but when drugs are abused, they harm only the guilty.

Click to expand...

Not true.

It is the luser who is usually most harmed by drug abuse, but the harm is seldom confined to him. Obviously this is more so with some drugs than with some others. Do you not recall all the news stories recently about people under the influence of “bath salts”, and the violence which this drug caused them to instigate against innocents? Some drugs have a proven tendency to cause their lusers to engage in violent, dangerous behavior that they otherwise wouldn't, which creates danger not just to themselves, but to others around them.

Less spectacularly, of course, it is a trait of nearly all these drugs that they cause impaired judgement and motor control; when people under the influence of such drugs drive or operate heavy machinery, they certainly create a danger to others.

And then, of course, there is the fact that drug use renders many people incapable of holding down a productive job, which means that instead of contributing to society, they become a burden thereon; adversely affecting everyone else who must share some portion of that burden.

Bob Blaylock said:

Not true.

It is the luser who is usually most harmed by drug abuse, but the harm is seldom confined to him. Obviously this is more so with some drugs than with some others. Do you not recall all the news stories recently about people under the influence of “bath salts”, and the violence which this drug caused them to instigate against innocents? Some drugs have a proven tendency to cause their lusers to engage in violent, dangerous behavior that they otherwise wouldn't, which creates danger not just to themselves, but to others around them.

Less spectacularly, of course, it is a trait of nearly all these drugs that they cause impaired judgement and motor control; when people under the influence of such drugs drive or operate heavy machinery, they certainly create a danger to others.

And then, of course, there is the fact that drug use renders many people incapable of holding down a productive job, which means that instead of contributing to society, they become a burden thereon; adversely affecting everyone else who must share some portion of that burden.

Click to expand...

If you're talking about the Miami bath salts incident, both the victim and the "zombie," for lack of a better word, were under the influence of the bath salts. Think about it, would you allow someone to literally eat your face you were sober? I don't even need to ask that. Of course you wouldn't.

Your point about vehicles is well taken.

Still, I'm speaking in generalities. Drugs typically do the most harm to the drug addict, whereas guns, when they are abused, typically harm innocent bystanders.

HumanBeing said:

Bob Blaylock said:

Drugs are never used non-abusively; they are only ever used abusively. There is no non-abusive use for them.

Click to expand...

Sure there is, recreation and relaxation. Are you going to tell me you're a tea total [sic]?

Click to expand...

I believe the word you were looking for is “teetotaller”.

Yes, I suppose I am. I have never been stupid enough to use alcohol nor any other mind-damaging drug. I do not need such for recreation nor relaxation, and it is obvious to me that anyone who thinks they do is seriously ****ed up. I suppose I should not be a surprised as I usually am when someone likes you expresses astonishment at the idea that someone like me can get along just fine without resorting the the use of these harmful substance; such is obviously part of the same stupidity that leads people to use these substances in the first place.

HumanBeing said:

Also, how about some of the other points I raised? People easily obtain drugs whether legal or not, so encouraging responsible use/abstinence is far more likely to have a positive outcome than simply forcing it underground (a la prohibition).

Click to expand...

Here, I must concede that you may have a point. In my view, drug abuse is, in itself, clearly harmful. It is harmful to the individual who engages in it; it is harmful to those around him—especially those who are in any position to be affected by his drug-induced behavior; and it is harmful to society as a whole. The less drug abuse occurs, the better for everyone.

Whether making drug possession and abuse a criminal matter may not be the best way to reduce the incidence of drug abuse. Clearly, it is better for people to freely choose not to abuse drugs; than for them to choose to abuse drugs and them have to be dealt with as criminals. Is there a better way? Surely, there must be, but I do not know what it is. Simply allowing drug abuse to go on unchecked certainly is not it.

Bob Blaylock said:

Also, do you ever use the "it's just an inanimate object" argument in favor of gun rights? I ask because it applies to drugs too in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't think the comparison is valid. As I pointed out before, guns have legitimate uses, and the vast majority of uses that are made of them are legitimate. Drugs, on the other hand, have no legitimate use at all; and are never used in a manner that is anything but harmful.

digsbe said:

Guns should be legal, drugs should be illegal.

Click to expand...

This - from a person whose icon is a molecule of caffeine - a substance more addictive than marijuana- by far.

Peter Grimm said:

If you're talking about the Miami bath salts incident, both the victim and the "zombie," for lack of a better word, were under the influence of the bath salts. Think about it, would you allow someone to literally eat your face you were sober? I don't even need to ask that. Of course you wouldn't.

Click to expand...

You seem to be referring to one specific incident, in which “bath salts” have been suspected, but not proven to have been involved. I don't know where you're getting the claim that the victim of this attack was also on “bath salts”, as I do not find that in any of the accounts that I am finding online regarding this incident.

While that may or may not have been an example of “bath salts”-induced violence, it is certainly not the only one.

Bob Blaylock said:

You seem to be referring to one specific incident, in which “bath salts” have been suspected, but not proven to have been involved. I don't know where you're getting the claim that the victim of this attack was also on “bath salts”, as I do not find that in any of the accounts that I am finding online regarding this incident.

While that may or may not have been an example of “bath salts”-induced violence, it is certainly not the only one.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I took some interest in that case because I used to live in Miami. They were two homeless guys, both on bath salts in broad daylight by an underpass. One homeless guy passed out, and the other one thought it'd be a good idea to eat his friend's face. (yeah, yuck.) Apparently he was hallucinating and thought he was some kind of animal.

I'm not going to try to argue that drug users are always only ever harming themselves, because I don't really believe that. However, that's true in most cases. Also, if a man on, say, bath salts, ever did want to harm you, he wouldn't be able. Drugs impair more than just judgement, they impair reaction time, coordination, concentration, etc. If the victim had been sober and awake, he almost certainly could have gotten away or defended himself.

Someone who is that high would barely be able to walk.

Bob Blaylock said:

View attachment 67147811

Click to expand...

Thanks for conceding.

MoSurveyor said:

Thanks for conceding.

Click to expand...

That wasn't a concession; it was a way of pointing out an instance of you “speaking with a forked tongue”.

Bob Blaylock said:

That wasn't a concession; it was a way of pointing out an instance of you “speaking with a forked tongue”.

Click to expand...

Since you didn't actually address anything it still sounds like a concession to me.

Bob Blaylock said:

Drugs are a whole different animal. Their entire purpose is to harm the person who takes them. And by so doing, the person often harms others as well. How does one use drugs in a non-abusive way? The answer, quite clearly, is that one simply does not.

Click to expand...

The part in bold is the stupidest thing I've read today. Drugs have been, and continue to be used for a wide variety of reasons in numerous cultures (e.g. shamanic, celebratory, etc, etc). Their purpose is almost never to harm the person who takes them. Their effect is sometimes to harm the person who takes them, but that's a different issue entirely. Unless you've never ingested either coffee or alcohol, you, too, have partaken of a non-harm oriented use of drugs.

And no, drug use does not "often" harm others. In fact drug use as such almost never harms others. What harms others is other stupid/violent/criminal behavior caused by drug use.

Aderleth said:

And no, drug use does not "often" harm others. In fact drug use as such almost never harms others. What harms others is other stupid/violent/criminal behavior caused by drug use.

Click to expand...

To cause harmful behavior is to cause harm to anyone who is adversely affected by that behavior.

Bob Blaylock said:

To cause harmful behavior is to cause harm to anyone who is adversely affected by that behavior.

Click to expand...

By that definition, you cause harmful behavior by just existing. Supply and demand dictates that your demands for food, housing, etc. increase everybody else's cost of living, which an obvious adverse effect for everyone else.