Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So nothing should be illegal because nothing can be prevented 100% of the time?
Correct, as long as it's lifestyle choices such as drugs, gambling, prostitution, food, drinks, etc.
The primary purpose of government is to protect the people and their rights. It is not an appropriate function of government to tell people how to live.
Victimless crimes are non-crimes in my opinion and should not be crimes. Drug abuse is a medical problem not a criminal problem. It is the criminalization that has created the violent illegal drug trade.
If gun laws don't work, then how can you say that drug laws do?
Simple. Drug laws don't work. Virtually anybody who wants illegal drugs can get them quite easily.
And the war on drugs is supported by idiots on the left and right including Obama.
that is exactly why I think drugs should be de-criminalized, if not simply made legal and taxed, just like tobacco and alcohol.
I certainly, cannot be accused of leaning left, and the "war on drugs" chaps me. Particularly with marijuana. Booze is far more harmful, is responsible for far more stupidity, and is legal. Weed has far less physical and psychological effects than Jack Daniels. It doesnt destroy tbe liver and pancreas, it doesnt destroy brain tissue, and, I have yet to see someone smoking weed become hyper violent and black out.
Marijuana is a PLANT. It grows, naturally, all over the world. An old saying comes to mind, "Man made booze, God made grass,....Who do you trust?
I do not support making meth, coke, heroin, etc, available at your local stop n go, but I see NO harm in letting folks grow weed for personal use, or, even taxing and letting it be sold, legally. If folks were toking more and drinking less, I can't see that as a bad thing.
So my question is this: If more restrictive gun laws don't seem to work and do nothing to keep guns out of people's hands, then how can drug laws work? Obviously using that same logic, drugs will still be widely available, as they are.
Actually, there is evidence that gun laws DO work. A recent study by Harvard researchers published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that states with tighter gun laws tend to have fewer gun deaths by homicide and suicide (analyzed separately.)
Judging by all the recent threads on guns, it appears that this board is overwhelmingly against more restrictive gun laws. People will cite numerous statistics (which are true) detailing how places like Chicago and DC which have very restrictive laws have some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. Gun laws are a complex issue with many sides to be taken note of.
Now, one could probably say that most of the people against more gun laws lean to the "right". The "right" also seems to be the side where the majority still support the current drug war taking place. I can make this claim due to the fact that most of the states which currently have medical or decriminalized marijuana laws (and 2 states which have outright legalized it) are democrat or left-leaning states, and the states with the harshest and most draconian marijuana laws are all republican or right-leaning states.
So my question is this: If more restrictive gun laws don't seem to work and do nothing to keep guns out of people's hands, then how can drug laws work? Obviously using that same logic, drugs will still be widely available, as they are.
So how can you argue against prohibition-like gun laws yet be FOR prohibition-like drug laws?
(and we won't even go into the hypocrisy on these same people advocating for smaller government and more personal liberty)
And before you attack me, I don't consider myself "left" or "right". I didn't vote for Obama and I don't really care to engage in sport's team politics like the rest of this board. Just asking a simple question.
Congratulations - you will the "brilliantly insightful post of the day" award!
So nothing should be illegal because nothing can be prevented 100% of the time? How about rape? A person content on committing rape isn't concerned with the law. Should rape be legal?
The reliance solely on 'LAW' is where the system fails.
There is no infinite linear relationship between the volume of laws and the volume of crime. There is a point of diminishing returns and other methods are required.
The law/justice system was originally designed to work with religious, family and community standards. The loss of the family unit and the cascade of deficeits that follow, cannot be rationalized away by social justice which accepts all forms of behavior, institutionally marginalizing and punishing opposing opinion.
With no moral compass or ethics characterizing the social justice, anti religious society we have become, the inadequacy of the law alone to make things work is glaring.
A society who condems Lance Armstrong for unethical behavior and honors politicians like Obama, Clinton and Pelosi is a lost society that law will never help. A society who condems a kid for eating a pop tart in the shape of a gun has intellectually gone over the cliff.
Gun violence is downstream of drugs and gangs..... if you could figure out how to solve the drug problems, gun violence would disappear. Take away everyone's guns and the drug problem remains.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
