• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guns vs Drugs

Legality of Guns vs Drugs

  • Generally speaking, guns should be legal but drugs shouldn't

    Votes: 6 19.4%
  • Generally speaking, drugs should be legal but guns shouldn't

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Both should be legal

    Votes: 21 67.7%
  • Both should be illegal

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Both should require a prescription/licence

    Votes: 2 6.5%

  • Total voters
    31

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's my view that there are strong similarities between guns and drugs, and the way they should be handled in society. They can be used to kill, and they can be used to save lives. They can help people or hurt people depending on who uses them and their motive for doing so, and can generally be accessed by those determined to obtain them whether they are legal or not.

Due to those views, I think you have to either be in favor of both being legal or illegal if you want to be consistent with your beliefs. This puts me in an awkward position when it comes to American politics, because it seems that (generally speaking) the left favors drugs but not guns, and the right favors guns but not drugs.

I didn't include the option of "some but not all drugs/guns" in the poll because I think that is a separate discussion in itself. That's why I used the term "generally speaking" in the polling options.

I made the poll to see how people actually feel about it, and would be especially interested to hear from people who support the legality of one but not the other and your reasons.

I'd also be interested to hear people's thoughts on how someone with those views would be accepted into American society, and whether this issue in itself would doom me to a life of isolation if I were to live there.
 
They should both be legal and easily obtained.
 
Guns should be legal, drugs should be illegal.
 
Last I checked, you can't use a joint for self-defense. ;)

There are some overlaps in terms of constituencies and liberal reasoning, but many of the fundamental justifications do not match.
 
drugs should be illegal.
Would I be right in guessing that you aren't including alcohol in this? If so why? It kills far more people than all illegal drugs combined.

Visbek said:
Last I checked, you can't use a joint for self-defense
You're doing it wrong. Did you smoke it yourself, or give it to the guy who wanted to assault you? :lol:
 
Last I checked, you can't use a joint for self-defense. ;)

There are some overlaps in terms of constituencies and liberal reasoning, but many of the fundamental justifications do not match.

Actually, pot has "saved" me more than once.

Cutting through a.local canyon once I encountered a group of ypung Latinos. As they approached they were obviously talking about me and when they started to fan out I knew I was in teouble. Thinking fast I remembered I had some weed on me.

So I simply called out to them asking if they had a.paper or a pipe. One of them did, smoking ensued, and suddenly I was "cool" with the local gang. Got invited to bbqs and everything.

Much better outcome than if I'd had a gun.
 
It's my view that there are strong similarities between guns and drugs, and the way they should be handled in society. They can be used to kill, and they can be used to save lives. They can help people or hurt people depending on who uses them and their motive for doing so, and can generally be accessed by those determined to obtain them whether they are legal or not.

It seems that you are treating legitimate medicinal drugs as being in the same category as destructive “recreational” drugs. The distinction is vital, here. The drugs that can “save lives” and “help people” are not the same as “recreational drugs”, which only cause harm. For purposes of this discussion, I will ignore legitimate medicinal use of drugs, over which there is no significant controversy, and confine any discussion of “drugs” to the harmful “recreational” use thereof.

Civilian ownership of arms is vital to protesting individual freedom and a free society; and it is for very good reason that the great men who wrote our Constitution included the right to do so in our Bill of Rights. Drugs fulfill no such function at all. The “recreational” abuse of drugs causes only harm, no good. You can argue that a person should be allowed the “right” to harm himself in this manner, along with any others who stand to be adversely affected by his doing so; but don't be fooled into thinking that by so arguing, you are in any way arguing anything comparable to the importance of upholding the right to keep and bear arms.


…(generally speaking) the left wrong favors drugs but not guns, and the right favors guns but not drugs.

This is nothing more than a narrow part of a broader difference between the right and the wrong. The right favors genuine, essential freedoms, such as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to hold and express controversial beliefs and opinions, property rights, and so on, while the wrong favors “freedoms” that are based on generally harmful, degrading things, such as pornography, drug abuse, sexual immorality, socialism, and so on.
 
The ownership of both should be legal. The use of both should be legal. The abuse of both should be illegal.
 
It seems that you are treating legitimate medicinal drugs as being in the same category as destructive “recreational” drugs. The distinction is vital, here. The drugs that can “save lives” and “help people” are not the same as “recreational drugs”, which only cause harm. For purposes of this discussion, I will ignore legitimate medicinal use of drugs, over which there is no significant controversy, and confine any discussion of “drugs” to the harmful “recreational” use thereof.

Civilian ownership of arms is vital to protesting individual freedom and a free society; and it is for very good reason that the great men who wrote our Constitution included the right to do so in our Bill of Rights. Drugs fulfill no such function at all. The “recreational” abuse of drugs causes only harm, no good. You can argue that a person should be allowed the “right” to harm himself in this manner, along with any others who stand to be adversely affected by his doing so; but don't be fooled into thinking that by so arguing, you are in any way arguing anything comparable to the importance of upholding the right to keep and bear arms.




This is nothing more than a narrow part of a broader difference between the right and the wrong. The right favors genuine, essential freedoms, such as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to hold and express controversial beliefs and opinions, property rights, and so on, while the wrong favors “freedoms” that are based on generally harmful, degrading things, such as pornography, drug abuse, sexual immorality, socialism, and so on.
If I can't grow pot or mix up whatever in my basement then where the hell are my property rights? Your statement is bull right there. If I can't do what I want with a consenting adult in my own bedroom then where are my property rights? What good is property if my bedroom is open for all to peek in and dictate what goes on in there?

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

Pornography? So much for "the right to hold and express controversial beliefs".

And so on ...
 
Last edited:
Last I checked, you can't use a joint for self-defense. ;)

You can if threatened by anorexia.

There are some overlaps in terms of constituencies and liberal reasoning, but many of the fundamental justifications do not match.

So long as you are not infringing upon the rights of others, one should be free to do as they like.
 
My thinking doesn't really fit an option precisely:

Both should be available but managed/policed in various ways.

With drugs this probably means FDA oversight, licensed sellers (a la cigarettes and booze) and age restrictions for purchase.

For guns, this means waiting periods and background checks to weed out the crazies and convicted felons.
 
It's my view that there are strong similarities between guns and drugs, and the way they should be handled in society. They can be used to kill, and they can be used to save lives. They can help people or hurt people depending on who uses them and their motive for doing so, and can generally be accessed by those determined to obtain them whether they are legal or not.

Due to those views, I think you have to either be in favor of both being legal or illegal if you want to be consistent with your beliefs. This puts me in an awkward position when it comes to American politics, because it seems that (generally speaking) the left favors drugs but not guns, and the right favors guns but not drugs.

I didn't include the option of "some but not all drugs/guns" in the poll because I think that is a separate discussion in itself. That's why I used the term "generally speaking" in the polling options.

I made the poll to see how people actually feel about it, and would be especially interested to hear from people who support the legality of one but not the other and your reasons.

I'd also be interested to hear people's thoughts on how someone with those views would be accepted into American society, and whether this issue in itself would doom me to a life of isolation if I were to live there.



I tend to favor very permissive laws in terms of both. My reasoning on drugs is similar to the historical realities of Prohibition in the 1920s: people will get what they want, and making it illegal just empowers the gangs and dealers and makes it all more unsafe.

There is a fundamental difference here though: the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right in the Constitution, second in the Bill of Rights.

The right to decide for youself what substances to put into your body is more of an IMPLIED right. That doesn't make it NOT a Constitutional issue (in the 1920s they were honest enough to admit the Fedgov lacked the authority to ban substances nationwide and passed an AMENDMENT to give themselves that authority... then repealed it when it worked out very badly...), just that guns are more solidly a BoR/Constitution-GUARANTEED right that ought not be infringed to any great degree.
 
To me, if no one else, its obvious that either should be legal for most people, but NOT all..
Some, for reasons that may not be overt, cannot handle guns and/or drugs..
The reasons are mental deficiencies, either minor in nature or major (criminal).
The generalized statement that cons favor guns, but not drugs......is not really true...Drug addiction can affect both liberal and conservative, and libertarian, or apolitical...
The problem is extremism...
 
The ownership of both should be legal. The use of both should be legal. The abuse of both should be illegal.

thread over-nothing can overcome this logic
 
My thinking doesn't really fit an option precisely:

Both should be available but managed/policed in various ways.

With drugs this probably means FDA oversight, licensed sellers (a la cigarettes and booze) and age restrictions for purchase.

For guns, this means waiting periods and background checks to weed out the crazies and convicted felons.
Aderleth, this is much closer to the way things should be, and may be in the future....a good deal of "growing up" by our nation is necessary.....a lot less clinging to our old Constitution and much more in respecting the people.....and I mean all of the people....
 
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.
 
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.

I guess the concept of making abuse of either item illegal and subject to severe punishments is beyond your comprehension?
 
guns-and-dope-party.jpg


The Robert Anton Wilson Website - Guns and Dope Party
 
Back
Top Bottom