From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Here's the problem
Date: 23 Dec 1992 01:57:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jrh@mustang.dell.com (Randy Howard) says:

>jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>>The following came from talk.politics.drugs but I thought it illustrates
>>quite starkly what is wrong with the criminal justice system.  Amazing
>>that is is considered twice as bad to own a chemical as to rob someone
>>using a weapon.
>
>[wizbang charts deleted]
>
>Yeah, I suppose that is because we have declared "WAR ON DRUGS", and have
>yet to declare war on GUNS.  Of course, declaring war on them seems to have
>convinced a lot of drug dealers to stock up on heavy artillery.  :)
>
>This brings to mind (for no obvious reason) a discussion I had a few nights
>ago with an obvious -- shall I say it?  Ok.. the L-word... -- liberal who
>was trying to justify legalizing drugs to make the problem go away.  Somehow, 
>I still don't understand the exact case he made, he used the pro-gun reasoning
>to justify his position.  The basics were the belief that if you outlaw guns,
>only outlaws have guns, and the same thing applies to cocaine and other
>illegal drugs.  I was stunned, but after seeing Clinton elected, this was 
>by far easier to grasp, I had been immunized to such obvious stupidity.
>
>My response was simple..  "I see no Right to Bear Drugs in the Bill of Rights,
>so I don't think the people can claim they have any SPECIFIC right to drugs.
>Of course, there are lots of general broad references to freedom, but of
>course nothing anywhere near as clear as the 2nd. 

Try the 9th Amendment:  Failure of the Constitution to mention a right does
not mean that right does not exist.  And the 10th:  Any powers not delegated
to the federal gov't are reserved to the states or the people, respectively.

 He then was forced to think
>for a minute, an effort that obviously pained him, followed by a claim that I
>have never heard before:  "George Washington smoked pot.  It's in his memoirs."
>
>I have no idea if that is true or not, and I don't really care at this point,
>he's been dead far too long to prosecute.  I simply said "Well, if he had 
>thought it was as important to keep that right as the RKBA, I assume he would
>have pushed to put it in the constitution".  I know, a weak comeback, but I
>was caught offguard by his claim, and I don't put any effort into learning 
>the precedents for drug legalization.  The only thing that stuck me funny is,
>if this is really a common argument that they use (the firearm reference),
>one could assume that a lot of drug dealers are anti-HCI.  Perhaps we can get
>them to join the NRA with the money they make off their clients. :)
>
Washington not only smoked dope...he grew it.  He wrote numerous letters
to people concerning his hemp crop, and it is quite clear from his 
discussion of how he grew the stuff that he was growing stuff to smoke,
not to make rope with.

I would expect the drug dealers to be pro-HCI, since HCI's policies would
result in no significant difficulty in criminals obtaining weapons, while
their victims (honest citizens) would be effectively disarmed.

>(For those that have been awake too long, take this with a grain of salt)
>
>-- 
>Randy Howard            _o	    @'s: jrh@dell.com
>Dell Computer Corp.     \<,	    !'s: ...!uunet!dellunix!jrh
>______________________()/ ()______________________________________________
>
>
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.