Odd choice of Member for Committee to Regulate Guns in the US (Page 2)

LiptonCambell: >>>Even if you legalize pot, there is still going to be other drugs that should NOT be legalized and that people will deal in.

Yea, but lets be honest- Pot is pretty popular. Taking out that money is a big hunk of money out of the hands of violent offenders.

---

>>> Every one, with strong regulation on dosage levels and who can get them and under what circumstances.

What? What nonsense is this? How do people get illegal drugs now?

The Black Market.

If you make it illegal to own more than a few grams of Meth, and the person wants enough to last them a weekend, where are they going to get it?

The Black Market.

Uppers and Downers are legal to own, but there's a black market out there so the people who cannot get it legally can get their hands on them.

What you are suggesting is utter nonsense. You're suggesting that, if drugs were decriminalized, that criminals wouldn't be selling drugs- and I agree with that. But you're equally wanting to completely control the sale and use of drugs, to prevent misuse or abuse of such things....which was the entire purpose of prohibition in the first place....I mean, the majority of the black markets business is for people who intend on abusing what they got...

>>> you would gain by collecting tax money,

Even more of a reason why people would use the black market- if you sell 20$ worth of weed for 35$ because of taxes, then why would anyone spend the extra 15$?

In Ontario, we've heavily taxed cigarettes. And what has happened? Our Aboriginal Reserves sells cigarettes, tax free, illegally.

davesdatahut: Assuming, arguendo, that your Aboriginal Reserves sell black market cigarettes, I also am guessing that the vast majority of Ontarions buy their smokes in regular stores, paying whatever taxes the government collects. So, swatting that bit of distraction aside, let's get back to other assertions....
People get illegal drugs now on the black market. Because they are illegal. Just as people bought bootleg booze during Prohibition. If it were legal, they would buy it in stores, mostly, just as most booze now is sold legally through stores, instead of by criminals. I think we are in agreement on that, although I am not sure, from what you typed.
As for use and misuse, you do your best to control that through education....and perhaps in a small way from regulating dosages allowed for sale. The education component, paid for with the tax generated from sales, would be the key. We have made some progress against alcoholism and drunk driving through education addressing this legal drug. This could be applied to what are currently illegal drugs as well. You'll never get rid of drug abuse, whether we are talking about booze or other drugs, but you sure can get a better handle on it if all were legal.
All this isn't really the main point anyway. We started off here talking about ways to reduce gun violence. And I can think of no single, quicker way of doing that than getting drug dealers off the streets and eliminating the havoc they cause.
And as an aside, what right does the government have to tell anyone what to do or not do to their own bodies anyway? Aside from the monstrous waste of resources fighting drugs, this should be opposed by anyone who objects to government intrusion in people's personal lives. No?
Put another way, at what point did it become the government's job to tell people how to treat their own bodies?

LiptonCambell: >>>that your Aboriginal Reserves sell black market cigarettes, I also am guessing that the vast majority of Ontarions buy their smokes in regular stores, paying whatever taxes the government collects.

From the National Post back in 2010;

"The native product accounts for an estimated 30% of cigarettes smoked in Canada, and has dragged to a halt the steady, decades-long decline in smoking rates, critics say. They also represent $2-billion a year in lost federal and provincial revenue."

30%! That's a huge percentage! That's nearly half a million sales- and with $10 for 200 cigarettes, versus the legal cigarettes costing $90 for 200, that means they are pulling in nearly 5 million dollars a year.

Claiming that cranking up taxes wouldn't affect the black market is DEAD WRONG. Taxes for cigarettes were cranked up in Canada- and all that did was drive the business towards the black market.

If you goal is to reduce the strength of the black market, then you are contradicting yourself. Suggesting that we should end prohibition and increase taxes to control drug use will not reduce the strength of the black market.

>>>. If it were legal, they would buy it in stores, mostly, just as most booze now is sold legally through stores, instead of by criminals.

Assuming it was fairly priced. And taxes upon taxes will only ensure people will refuse to purchase it legally when they could get it far cheaper through the black market.

>>>As for use and misuse, you do your best to control that through education....

Then why are there people using Meth and Heroin to begin with? There's plenty of education about these drugs to children and adults- but people still choose to misuse these drugs.

>>>and perhaps in a small way from regulating dosages allowed for sale. The

Would this stop you? If you were told you're permitting to buy 1 joint a month- would you try to find a way to get more?

>>>You'll never get rid of drug abuse

Then why are you trying to?

>>>And I can think of no single, quicker way of doing that than getting drug dealers off the streets and eliminating the havoc they cause.

And we're back to what I was saying earlier- you think that regulating drugs will end the black market on drugs- it won't. Regulations will ALWAYS create a black market- and through the black market is how this violence will continue.

>>>Put another way, at what point did it become the government's job to tell people how to treat their own bodies?

You tell me. You want to tell people how much dosages they can treat their own bodies to, not me.

You think by supporting regulations over criminalization, you are taking a righteous stand. I don't see that. I see someone seeing the problem, finding the solution, but are unwilling to make enough of a principled stand to solve the issue.

OCD_OCD: This is such a murky process, which is why I believe that we will never find a way to solve the issue of drugs or weapons.

Guns are a constitutional right. What TYPE of guns might be addressed, but gun ownership will never change because of the way our nation came about and the tenets set in place to protect citizens from a government run amok.

What, to me, our problem seems to be is that we are no longer fish nor fowl. We are not a democratic republic where government has it's purpose, but is meant to serve the people. We have adopted socialistic principles in some areas and not in others. The two are diametrically opposing forms of government and it's short-sighted of our politicians to believe that both can coexist when our Constitution is specifically written to limit government interference and control over the people of this nation.

Until there are consequences for our individual actions, then nothing will be solved. Consequences are difficult, but until the government stops acting as a nanny and making failure impossible because there is a back-up welfare plan for every eventuality, then people will not change. There will be lazy people and hard-working people. There will be drug addicts and people who abstain.

But the only way to make people work or stop using drugs is to kick the crutch out from under them. Some people think that is too harsh, but reason and reality show that this is the only way.

We can't have it both ways. If we want the government to stay out of our business and allow us to live freely, then there must be no regulation on drugs, guns, smoking, prostitution, and anything else. However, along with that the government cannot be expected to put your ass in rehab when you OD or become an alcoholic. It can't decide who can smoke or where they can smoke or if someone wants to make a few bucks by prostituting themselves out to every truck driver or horny college kid within 300 miles.

It's either one way or the other.

davesdatahut: Lipton, let me state yet AGAIN that my main point is not to control drug use, although I have every reason, from our experience with alcohol, that we can reduce abuse through education, funded through taxes raised from legal drug sales. My main point is to reduce gun violence, not drug use reduction. So, now that I have said it again...on to your other comment....
Your assertion that the Canadian experience with cigarettes, even if true, would be replicated in any way if the US were to legalize drugs is a huge stretch and extremely unlikely to be replicated. If it were, then we'd have loads of underground booze sales. Essentially you are saying that 30 percent of Canadian cigarettes are sold illegally, therefore legalizing drugs in the US should not be tried because it would lead to the same thing. This is a bit loony.
However, for the sake of agrument, ok, let's accept that bit of circular reasoning and say 30 percent of the drug market would remain illegal if the government legalized drugs and regulated them. Let's employ some suspension of disbelief, like in the theatre, and consider that it would. And 30 percent of the drug market remains illegal.
That means 70 percent of the drug market becomes legal and is taken out of the hands of violent drugs gangs? Yes? Seventy percent less market share for violent drug gangs? Have I got that math right? Hmmm. Ok....mulling mulling mulling mulling...andddd....I'll take that deal!!
Seventy percent less illegal drug gang action. You have a deal! Let's DO it!
That being dispensed with, what else have you got to argue against legalizing drugs as a way to reduce gun violence?

As for righteous stands, I have no intentions of being righteous. Just practical. I'm trying to come up with ways to reduce gun violence.

Dennae:
Just a quick note then I'll be off

Lipton >>>Even if you legalize pot, there is still going to be other drugs that should NOT be legalized and that people will deal in.

Yea, but lets be honest- Pot is pretty popular. Taking out that money is a big hunk of money out of the hands of violent offenders.


The drug that causes most violent offending is already legal. In fact, it attributes to more violent offending than ALL other drugs combined. It's called alcohol.

Dennae:
Sorry, I forgot to reference.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi439.html

Now I'm done.

LiptonCambell: >>>My main point is to reduce gun violence, not drug use reduction.

I understand this. But you seem to be completely unwilling to see my points;

If your goals are to weaken the criminal element by removing their source of income, then going from "illegal to possess" to "illegal to possess too much" isn't going to cut it. There would still be strong reason for criminals to produce and sell these drugs, tax free and without restrictions. There would still be a market for them, and they would be stronger, cheaper, and larger doses.

All you would do is make the world safe for causal drug users. Violent criminals would still have market to get rich off of- making your entire argument moot.

If your goal is to eliminate the illegal incomes of violent criminals, then regulation isn't enough.

>>>even if true

*IF* true? You think It's not?

>>>Essentially you are saying that 30 percent of Canadian cigarettes are sold illegally, therefore legalizing drugs in the US should not be tried because it would lead to the same thing.

Not the same percentages, no- but alot of this depends on something you never seem confident to give- specifics. If dosages are kept low, people are more likely to turn to an illegal source.

Also, I couldn't help but notice....you ignored my comments on the dosage

"If you were told you're permitting to buy 1 joint a month- would you try to find a way to get more?"

No comments to be made?

---

>>> It's called alcohol.

Alcohol makes people violent. Pot and Heroin though? Not quite the same circumstance...

Nicorrette: in some arias it is gun possesion lawed!

sebtheanimal: These self righteous pinheads feel they must justify their salaries and enact some new measures, none of which would have prevented that school shooting.

The 2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from a tyrannical government and to preserve liberty. Current laws already make murder illegal.

LiptonCambell: That's what I can't get past, and users such as davesdatahut disregard as completely irrelevant- the kind of changes they want to see made WOULDN'T HAVE PREVENTED ANYTHING. It's utter nonsense.

OCD_OCD: Congress seems to want to enact more layers of laws in an effort to garner future votes. we already have laws ad infinitum.

What the government doesn't seem to understand is that the government cannot regulate humanity, insanity or acts of nature.

davesdatahut: Lipton...Your claim about how legalizing drugs would not force the criminal element out of the drug business is a dubious one at best. Again, view the history of Prohibition and how the mob was largely taken out of the booze business. We have no reason, based on this history, to believe the same would not happen with drug legalization is to ignore history.
That being said, I thought I was clear it my earlier post that I am going to set aside my knowledge of history and accept you belief the some drugs (30 percent in your analogy) would still be controlled by bad elements. This means 70 percent would no longer be. I am willing to take that deal and then keep working on how to get rid of the business controlled by the remaining 30 percent. I am ALRIGHT with that.
Let's DO it. Is this not better than what we have now? Where do we go from here?

davesdatahut: Lipton, I should add that I actually do NOT think gun controls will have any huge impact on the indiscriminate massacres or other random shootings by enraged wackos.
I AM totally for anything that gives law enforcement the ability to talk to family members, employers, therapists etc with the goal of finding ways to guns out of the immediate reach of kooks. But I hold no illusion that this will have any big short-term effect on the ability of the mentally ill to wreak havoc. Nuts will still find a way to get guns because there are so many out there. We can thank the devils in the NRA for that.
My other point on legalizing drugs is aimed at attacking something that causes far more gun violence than the random shootings. The random massacres get way more publicity. But the drug violence claims far more victims.

OCD_OCD: But why take legal guns from legal owners to punish illegal guns and drug abusers?

davesdatahut: O, I'm not suggesting that legal gun owners turn in their weapons....unless the legal gun owners are nuts or have certifiable nuts in their homes.

OCD_OCD: By saying that, then the Chief of Police in Boston would not be allowed to have a gun. His son was obviously...not right in the head when he planned a school massacre.

davesdatahut: I'd have to think about that...when it involves law enforcement. But those are the kinds of situations that background checkers need to be able to know about.

OCD_OCD: Think about it, though, Dave. How many of these killings are a one-time only thing with no previous history or discernible precursors?

davesdatahut: Some are. Some aren't. I'm just trying to come up with some ways to get at this problem. We need to at least try new things.....along with the drug legalization.

OCD_OCD: What we shouldn't do is ban any weapons because of the way they look. That is past silly.

OCD_OCD: If I thought there was an honest effort, then I might be on board. What I see, however, is pandering for votes.

davesdatahut: I can't dispute the concern about pandering, not for one moment. It's what they do.
As for weapon bans, I don't know how much that would accomplish. Probably very little. It's little more than symbolism, although I will lose no sleep over legislation that makes high-capacity semi-automatics illegal. Why anyone needs those is beyond me.

OCD_OCD: I see no purpose in high capacity automatic weapons, but they seem to be lumping in single shot, multiple round weapons also.

davesdatahut: Which is wrong....I agree. People should still be allowed to defend their homes and businesses. Alas, the high-capacity horse is outta the barn and it ain't comin back, so they really should be focusing more on other things.