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.
It was Richard Nixon who started the war on drugs and Ronald Reagan who got tougher than his predecessors. Marijuana was illegal 1937 but it wasn't causing a massive drug trade with lots of violence. Alcohol Prohibition was pushed by the Christians.
your playing semantics there....
Nixon was the first to use THE TERM "war on drugs"...but a simular term was started in the 30's....
The pledge to wage “relentless warfare” on drugs was, first made in the 1930s, by a man who has been largely forgotten today......Harry Anslinger head of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
and it has been happening for decades before nixon
1906=====The Pure Food and Drug Act requires that certain specified drugs, including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, morphine, and cannabis, be accurately labeled with contents and dosage
1911===== United States first Opium Commissioner argues that of all the nations of the world, the United States consumes most habit-forming drugs per capita
1914====== The first recorded instance of the United States enacting a ban on the domestic distribution of drugs is the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914. This act was presented and passed as a method of regulating the production and distribution of opiate-containing substances under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, but a section of the act was later interpreted by law enforcement officials for the purpose of prosecuting doctors who prescribe opiates to addicts
A war on narcotics alone—cocaine and heroin, outlawed in 1914—wasn’t enough
1925====== United States supported regulation of cannabis as a drug in the International Opium Convention. and by the mid-1930s all member states had some regulation of cannabis.
1935====== President Roosevelt hails the International Opium Convention and application of it in US. law and other anti-drug laws in a radio message to the nation.
1937=======Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. Presented as a $1 nuisance tax on the distribution of marijuana, this act required anyone distributing the drug to maintain and submit a detailed account of his or her transactions, including inspections, affidavits, and private information regarding the parties involved. This law, however, was something of a "Catch-22", as obtaining a tax stamp required individuals to first present their goods, which was an action tantamount to confession. This act was passed by Congress on the basis of testimony and public perception that marijuana caused insanity, criminality, and death.
1951======= The 1951 Boggs Act increased penalties fourfold, including mandatory penalties.
1956======= The Daniel Act increased penalties by a factor of eight over those specified in the Boggs Act. Although by this time there was adequate testimony to refute the claim that marijuana caused insanity, criminality, or death, the rationalizations for these laws shifted in focus to the proposition that marijuana use led to the use of heroin, creating the gateway drug theory
In the case it isn't true. But yes, conservative democrats (Dixiecrat) were a real thing. I'm sorry history doesn't look kindly towards conservatives in many social aspects.
Most Republicans today after descendants of Dixiecrats, they don't even know their own history. Thanks for pointing that out, many Republicans don't know there history of the political parties.
Ever wonder if the reason for the anti drug laws is the law enforcers need the guarantee of endless work? Why don't they try a law against business larceny? That would keep them busy forever.
Back on topic. I do not believe we need any more gun laws but could use a repeal of the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. As we will not spend the time energy effort and money needed to keep the crazies off the street we need more weapons in the hands of normal citizen's on the street. "Sanctuary Zones" are a bad idea as they only serve to concentrate defenseless targets for the shooters. These people may be "crazy" but they are not, apparently, stupid. They go after the supposedly protected targets.
I've read this whole thread and I still haven't seen an answer to the OP.....
So I will ask it again... Can anyone tell me what new gun law would have prevented the Oregon shooting?
I've read this whole thread and I still haven't seen an answer to the OP.....
So I will ask it again... Can anyone tell me what new gun law would have prevented the Oregon shooting?
I've read this whole thread and I still haven't seen an answer to the OP.....
So I will ask it again... Can anyone tell me what new gun law would have prevented the Oregon shooting?
short answer is NONE...especially if the question is ""what new gun laws would stop shootings"""
but including medical red flags in the background checks could and should
1. I am pretty sure the NSA and the FBI watch the internet (social boards etc) for people making statements that would be construed as threats...ie risk management, to find some of the threats to the USA and of its people (just like they did with the other day with the cali kids wanting to shoot up a school)
2. most conservatives and EVEN THE NRA have zero problems with background checks....easier background checks.....heck with today's technology a COMPLETE background check could be done in MINUTES,...too include medical (and a 'red flag' will NOT violate hipa laws either)
3. better medical documentation and referalls.....if some one has a mental issue..document it for jiminy crickets sake..... young adults like adam lanza should have been committed to an institution long ago...and had the doctors and his mother actually seeked help for the boy, he would have
4. most conservatives and EVEN THE NRA have zero problems with......more education, more training.......require some classes.....heck most of us, who LEGALLY own handguns have taken the CC class....and the standard could set set federally, but the states have control of how they do it, to accomplish the mission
5. better communication between all of our alphabet/federal/state/city/local agencies.....that would help too, and not only about purchasing weapons, but all other things too such as missing child support, revoked licenses, voting registration, laudenberg rules, medical mistakes(would it be nice if doctor A knew that doctor B perscribed this, so he/she can NOT perscribe something that will counteract/bad side effect medicine(to include RX(A) knowing that RX(B) filled dis,dat or the other ding, etc)))
6. over 50% of the homeless are Vets, and over 85% of the homeless are homeless becuase of mental health issues... yet the liberals NEVER address it
WHAT ARE THE LIBERALS GOING TO DO/POLICY/FUND TO HELP WITH THE MENTAL HEALTH ISSSUES THAT ARE PLAGUING AMERICA......?????????
but to ban guns and to confisgate all weapons would not only be a violation of our 2nd amendment right...but also of the 4th amendment.......... the funny thing is liberals were all up in arms (pun intended) about "stop and frisk" saying it violated the 4th amendment.......hmmmm
The 1982 law was a symbolic rebuke to the village of Morton Grove, Illinois, the first community to ban the sale and possession of handguns. Kennesaw’s ordinance had little effect on a rural community where most people already owned firearms, Graydon said. It was also unenforceable on its face. Anyone who says they are morally opposed to guns is exempt. So is anyone who can’t afford to buy one.
AFIK everything the shooter did was already illegal. IMHO it is not the laws that need to be changed but the attitude held by many of the victims that we live in a violence free society and that their parents, police and others will protect them from violence. We do not live in a violence free society. Nor do we live in a society that keeps its crazies locked up where they cannot harm others.
We live in a society where violence is all around us. In some places violence is a daily occurrence. It most places it is rare. We all have to be aware that violence can just reach right out and grab us. We have to realize that there is no place that is completely safe and there never has been. The level of risk varies but is never completely gone. We have to abandon the idea that there safe sanctuaries. There are no such places as illustrated by recent events.
The result of this situation where the society does not protect individuals and risk is everywhere is the individual is responsible for their own protection. IMHO the government is being irresponsible it has no right to limit the weaponry any sane citizen can carry anywhere they happen to be. We are responsible for protecting ourselves, our families, friends and, if necessary, total strangers being attacked by a gun wielding crazy.
i had to rep you for this post greg, well said my friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
It was Richard Nixon who started the war on drugs and Ronald Reagan who got tougher than his predecessors. Marijuana was illegal 1937 but it wasn't causing a massive drug trade with lots of violence. Alcohol Prohibition was pushed by the Christians.
so you dont think that the mod, who made themselves during prohibition, didnt start importing marijuana in large amounts to replace booze? get real. once prohibition was repealed, they in fact did start importing marijuana and they did start making large sums of money off that drug, illegally of course. nice try, but you fail.
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.
