Feds, Drugs, & Mind Control

Whenever I mention that drug laws are useless when talking with liberals, they agree enthusisatically. When I point out that tax and gun laws get broken just as often, they look at me like I just shat in their kitchen sink.

If people are willing to break the law to get high, what do you think is going to happen when there are thousands or millions of dollars at stake? You think the people who will be affected won't try to change laws or find ways around them? If the law can't stop seventh graders from buying weed, how the hell is going to stop a mobster from buying an uzi?

Liberals make laws the conservatives ignore; conservatives make laws liberals ignore. They each have their list of do's and don'ts and work tirelessly to impose them on everyone.

I don't care if people drive SUVs, have yachts, or own handguns. Nor do I care if they smoke weed, fudgepack/carpetmunch, or make pee-pee Jesus pictures. It doesn't affect me, so what's the problem? Besides, it's basically impossible to control human behavior, so why bother trying?

Am I crazy?

[Eva]

it seems like you had a whole year in shitfuckistan, by yourself, to ponder the inponderables of life in the US of A....

[nkb]

I'm not sure I see the connection between gun laws and drug laws. Yes, they're both on the books, and some people break them. Laws against murdering and raping people are also constantly broken.

There is an important difference between murder & rape vs. druge use & gun ownership. In the first case, one person is causing harm to another against their will. In second case, a person is not causing harm to anyone (other than themselves possibly) against their will. Simply smoking pot or owning a pistol does no direct harm to anyone. It's a victimless "crime."

If the efficacy of a law is to be judged by the number of offenders caught vs. the total number of offenders, drug laws fare very poorly. In a given year, about 700,000 people get arrested for marijuana possession.
However, about 1/3 of Americans have have smoked marijuana at least once, which means that only about 1% of marijuana users ever get arrested for it. I read a slightly more sanguine estimate from the DEA which stated that about 6% of marijuana users ever get busted (sorry, couldn't find the link for that one).

As for guns, probably the most notorious gun law failure was the recently repealed DC Handgun Ban. It was in effect for 32 years and during that time, DC had one the highest homicide rates in the nation. It's useless to ban handguns in DC because you can buy one in MD or VA and sneak it in. What are the cops going to do? Search every car that enters the area?

If the laws do not deter that much crime, what good are they? They cost money to enforce and restrict freedom unnecessarily.

[nkb]

Still not seeing the link between drug use and gun ownership. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Incidentally, I agree with you on both the retarded drug use laws, and trying to practice gun control in individual cities or areas.

Another brick in the wall wrote

If the laws do not deter that much crime, what good are they? They cost money to enforce and restrict freedom unnecessarily.

I beg to differ. Restricting gun ownership has been shown to work quite effectively in bringing (or keeping) down gun violence, in many countries.

Drug laws are ineffective; gun laws are ineffective. They both restrict freedom to own or purchase something.

The only difference is the first set of laws receives most of its support from conservatives while the other receives most of its support from liberals.

As for your last point, gun control laws in Mexico, Russia, and Colombia are basically useless.
So, to summarize, gun control laws work well in societies where guns are scarce anyway.

[nkb]

Another brick in the wall wrote

Drug laws are ineffective; gun laws are ineffective. They both restrict freedom to own or purchase something.

Yes, you have already mentioned these very general similarities. And that's where the comparison ends.

Tell me, how are the laws against owning RPGs, Cemtex, and fully functioning tanks, or nuclear warheads working? Is that considered infringing on freedom?

Another brick in the wall wrote

The only difference is the first set of laws receives most of its support from conservatives while the other receives most of its support from liberals.

Really, that's the only difference?

Another brick in the wall wrote

As for your last point, gun control laws in Mexico, Russia, and Colombia are basically useless.

What great examples. How are they doing on enforcing murder laws? Is it maybe associated with the fact that crime is rampant in all three, because the government has no control?

Another brick in the wall wrote

So, to summarize, gun control laws work well in societies where guns are scarce anyway.

So, to summarize, gun control laws work well in societies where the government has the ability to enforce the law.

This thread is starting to get fun!

nkb wrote

Yes, you have already mentioned these very general similarities. And that's where the comparison ends.

Tell me, how are the laws against owning RPGs, Cemtex, and fully functioning tanks, or nuclear warheads working? Is that considered infringing on freedom?
Really, that's the only difference?

All the weapons you mentioned are much more sophisticated and expensive than small-arms. That might be a reason why they are harder to find in the bargain bin.

Americans don't own RPGs because of the law? Well, why don't we pass a law banning the Taliban from using them? That'll fix their wagon. You're a military mastermind!

nkb wrote

What great examples. How are they doing on enforcing murder laws? Is it maybe associated with the fact that crime is rampant in all three, because the government has no control?
So, to summarize, gun control laws work well in societies where the government has the ability to enforce the law.

Are you telling me the Russian government has less control over its citizens, or tries to exert less control, than the US government? Check Amnesty International for an answer.

Colombia and Mexico both spend enormous amounts of money fighting drug cartels. Their conspicuous lack of success says something about the wealth and organization of their adversaries (or perhaps their own disorganization and incompetence).

The fact that a government can control people in some way does not strike me as being much of a compliment. North Korea does a very good job in enforcing parade attendance.
Whoopee!

You can get people to do many things if you threaten them, but the question is: should you and for what reasons?

[nkb]

Another brick in the wall wrote

All the weapons you mentioned are much more sophisticated and expensive than small-arms. That might be a reason why they are harder to find in the bargain bin.

Yet, they can be found. Is the government effective in restricting ownership in the above weaponry, or not?

Another brick in the wall wrote

Americans don't own RPGs because of the law? Well, why don't we pass a law banning the Taliban from using them? That'll fix their wagon. You're a military mastermind!

If you want to be an asshole, and argue against strawmen, be my guest, but you'll be doing it solo.

Another brick in the wall wrote

Are you telling me the Russian government has less control over its citizens, or tries to exert less control, than the US government? Check Amnesty International for an answer.

Crime and corruption are rampant in Russia. Organized crime makes their US counterparts look like the Mickey Mouse Club. So, whatever the desire of the Russian government might be, yes, I am contending that they have less control over criminal elements.

Another brick in the wall wrote

Colombia and Mexico both spend enormous amounts of money fighting drug cartels. Their conspicuous lack of success says something about the wealth and organization of their adversaries (or perhaps their own disorganization and incompetence).

Thanks for making my point, although I would argue that they spend enormous amounts of our money to do this fighting. Considering the level of corruption in these 3rd world countries, I doubt the effectiveness of this fight.

Another brick in the wall wrote

The fact that a government can control people in some way does not strike me as being much of a compliment. North Korea does a very good job in enforcing parade attendance.

Another strawman. Is this the only thing you have in your arsenal? Why are you so afraid to make a valid comparison, industrialized nation to industrialized nation. Oh, I don't know, maybe Switzerland or Finland, where guns aren't scarce, yet gun control works quite well.

Another brick in the wall wrote

You can get people to do many things if you threaten them, but the question is: should you and for what reasons?

I am missing this non-sequitur. What does this relate to in the discussion?

nkb wrote

Yet, they can be found. Is the government effective in restricting ownership in the above weaponry, or not?

When was the last time you heard about a nuclear warhead being detonated by an individual or terrorist organization, outside of a Tom Clancy novel? There's no need to pass laws against private ownership of nuclear warheads because they're extremely difficult to manufacture and consequently are too expensive for the vast majority of people. Using your logic, the low incidence of medieval siege warfare must be due to the government's strict trebuchet control laws.

nkb wrote

Crime and corruption are rampant in Russia. Organized crime makes their US counterparts look like the Mickey Mouse Club. So, whatever the desire of the Russian government might be, yes, I am contending that they have less control over criminal elements.

So, even if a government goes to great lengths to enforce a law, it can still fail miserably. I believe this is what I've been saying since post #1.

nkb wrote

Another strawman. Is this the only thing you have in your arsenal? Why are you so afraid to make a valid comparison, industrialized nation to industrialized nation. Oh, I don't know, maybe Switzerland or Finland, where guns aren't scarce, yet gun control works quite well.

OK, let's look at this chart. See the big gap between Finland and the USA? Seems that guns are not so prevalent in Finland afterall. As for Switzerland, I suppose the fact that just about all the adult male citizens have been trained in firearm safety in their army helps cut down on the accident rate.

So we have a country where guns are rare and gun deaths are rare, a country where guns are common and gun deaths are common, and a country where guns are common but gun deaths are rare. Three different industrialized nations, three different trends.

nkb wrote

I am missing this non-sequitur. What does this relate to in the discussion?

I thought it put the whole discussion in a nutshell. Whether it's drugs, guns, or whatever, if you want to convince people not to do it, you have to threaten them. Even then, it often doesn't work, and it's all too easy to go overboard with it.

[Victus]

My policy views are actually, apparently, not that far off from Brick's. I don't care whether someone does drugs so long as they don't harm anyone else individually or society as a whole in doing so (hell even if they harm society to a limited extent, I'm still fine with it), although I also don't have a problem with heavily taxing highly addictive/hazardous substances so as to curb their use and control costs associated with medical complications (we have a single-payer system here).

I'm not inherently opposed to people owning guns, but the empirical from both individual and aggregate level studies indicate that some types of guns are particular health risks (i.e., their presence increases risk of suicide, and being shot by others), whereas others do so to a quite limited extent (e.g., rifles). Currently in Canada we are debating the "long gun registry", which has cost much money and has provided no obvious benefits.

[Choobus]

I was amazed to learn that gun ownership is correlated with gun deaths. Maybe I needs to get me a gun for protection

[Sternwallow]

Another brick in the wall wrote

Whenever I mention that drug laws are useless when talking with liberals, they agree enthusisatically. When I point out that tax and gun laws get broken just as often, they look at me like I just shat in their kitchen sink.

If people are willing to break the law to get high, what do you think is going to happen when there are thousands or millions of dollars at stake? You think the people who will be affected won't try to change laws or find ways around them? If the law can't stop seventh graders from buying weed, how the hell is going to stop a mobster from buying an uzi?

Liberals make laws the conservatives ignore; conservatives make laws liberals ignore. They each have their list of do's and don'ts and work tirelessly to impose them on everyone.

I don't care if people drive SUVs, have yachts, or own handguns. Nor do I care if they smoke weed, fudgepack/carpetmunch, or make pee-pee Jesus pictures. It doesn't affect me, so what's the problem? Besides, it's basically impossible to control human behavior, so why bother trying?

Am I crazy?

Maybe a little crazy.

I think your brush is much too wide. You are comparing laws for situations as diverse and disparate as between someone shooting up Heroin versus someone shooting up your neighborhood. They only sound alike.

The reasons there are laws against drugs are very different from the reasons for laws against prostitution. You may say that neither set of laws are proper or well enforced, and you may be right, but they are different and need to be addressed individually.

Personally, I think that laws should be uniform (*pun) across the whole country. If it is wrong to spit on the Mayor in Tulsa, it should be equally illegal and equally punishable in Fairbanks and Freeport and Oahu and "Chuggenburp Arkansaw".

Aside: I think public school curricula should also be uniform across the Nation. "What do American children know?" should be a meaningful question.

[/$0.02]

[Sternwallow]

Victus wrote

My policy views are actually, apparently, not that far off from Brick's. I don't care whether someone does drugs so long as they don't harm anyone else individually or society as a whole in doing so (hell even if they harm society to a limited extent, I'm still fine with it), although I also don't have a problem with heavily taxing highly addictive/hazardous substances so as to curb their use and control costs associated with medical complications (we have a single-payer system here).

I'm with you mostly on drug use. I dislike using taxes for anything but needed revenue, not for social engineering like the deliberately high tax on cigarettes, just to deter their use. I could consider requiring an expensive license to use drugs but I am not at all sure it would work any better.

I'm not inherently opposed to people owning guns, but the empirical from both individual and aggregate level studies indicate that some types of guns are particular health risks (i.e., their presence increases risk of suicide, and being shot by others), whereas others do so to a quite limited extent (e.g., rifles). Currently in Canada we are debating the "long gun registry", which has cost much money and has provided no obvious benefits.

How about "smart" pistols that cannot shoot unless it is you doing the shooting? That would cut-down or eliminate people being shot with their own guns. Fatally ironic.

I don't think suicide is relevant to this issue, not because few suicides are committed with guns (many are) but because suicide itself is not in the state's sphere of authority. You would have to ban ownership of rat poison, gas ovens, auto tailpipes and broken glass, or visits to high cliffs and pedestrian traffic on tall bridges.

As long as we require a license to be dependent on a background check, how about a required course in gun use and safety as well.

How about all gun-owning parents must promise to shoot any of their offspring who manage to break into daddy's (or mommies) gun locker and use the Glock to play "bang-bang, you're dead" with a neighbor child.

[Philboid Studge]

Sternwallow wrote

As long as we require a license to be dependent on a background check, how about a required course in gun use and safety as well.

Why not have similar licensing as is required for driving an automobile? Individual states can set their own standards, but they still have to conform to some national threshold of proficiency. Make gun owners also buy liability insurance, just as automobiles must be insured. The infrastructure is in place -- it can all be done at the DMV (as part of the test of a potential gun owner's stability: if he goes postal and shoots an insolent clerk, he won't be licensed.)

Should tax payers pay for all that? Why no, only gun owners should.