Gun owner hypocrisy that needs to stop

[Paddy]

Over the last forty years, I've known more people who were NOT addicted to the marijuana and cocaine that they used than I have known people who WERE addicted.

Reminds me of the smoker who said "I can quit whenever I want.  I've done it hundreds of times."    It is a fact that long term use of cocaine will cause addiction, irritability, mood disturbances, restlessness, paranoia, and auditory hallucinations.   I wouldn't mind having the BOR back either, but I don't think it guarantees unfettered access to cocaine.  Nor do I think the FF would support such access.

[The Rabbi]

Good.
So legalize all immigration.  If the gov't can't tell us what we can shoot or what we can smoke then it can't tell us who we can hire or where we can live.

[Strings]

>Drug use is not AFAIK, a constitutionally guaranteed right as is RKBA.<

Neither is:

having sexual relations with anyone (including your spouse)
keeping a pet
having children
eating a Big Mac
privacy while urinating

I think you get the idea. Just because it isn't in the CONUS, doesn't mean the Feds can play with it...

[Sindawe]

Well, isn't THIS interesting....

ABSTRACT: The hippocampal dentate gyrus in the adult mammalian brain contains neural stem/progenitor cells (NS/PCs) capable of generating new neurons, i.e., neurogenesis. Most drugs of abuse examined to date decrease adult hippocampal neurogenesis, but the effects of cannabis (marijuana or cannabinoids) on hippocampal neurogenesis remain unknown. This study aimed at investigating the potential regulatory capacity of the potent synthetic cannabinoid HU210 on hippocampal neurogenesis and its possible correlation with behavioral change. We show that both embryonic and adult rat hippocampal NS/PCs are immunoreactive for CB1 cannabinoid receptors, indicating that cannabinoids could act on CB1 receptors to regulate neurogenesis. This hypothesis is supported by further findings that HU210 promotes proliferation, but not differentiation, of cultured embryonic hippocampal NS/PCs likely via a sequential activation of CB1 receptors, Gi/o proteins, and ERK signaling. Chronic, but not acute, HU210 treatment promoted neurogenesis in the hippocampal dentate gyrus of adult rats and exerted anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects. X-irradiation of the hippocampus blocked both the neurogenic and behavioral effects of chronic HU210 treatment, suggesting that chronic HU210 treatment produces anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects likely via promotion of hippocampal neurogenesis.

Later in the article...

In summary, since adult hippocampal neurogenesis is suppressed following chronic administration of opiates (20), alcohol (21), nicotine (22), and cocaine (23), the present study suggests that cannabinoids are the only illicit drug that can promote adult hippocampal neurogenesis following chronic administration. Increased hippocampal neurogenesis appears to underlie the mechanism of anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effects produced by a high dose of chronic HU210 treatment. The opposing effects of high doses of acute and chronic cannabinoids, together with the anxiolytic-like effects caused by a low dose of cannabinoids, may finally explain discrepancies in the clinical study literature regarding the effects of cannabinoid on anxiety and depression.

Full text may be found here: http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/115/11/3104?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=+Xia+Zhang&searchid=1133492450532_5878&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jci

Perhaps I was too hasty in brushing off this weed all those years ago....

[brimic]

Ironically enough, I 'm reading this in between running a column chromatography to purify a batch of synthetic Delta-9 THC.

I'm completely for legalizing marijuana and can sympathize somewhat with those who want to legalize some harder drugs. That being said, comparing drugs to guns is a fallacious argument. Nowhere in the constitution does it read "....the right to use recreational drugs shall not be infringed."  The argument holds about as much water as gun banners who argue that we license automobile drivers, doctors, lawyers, and plumbers, so its perfectly reasonable to license gun owners as well.

[Sindawe]

Ironically enough, I 'm reading this in between running a column chromatography to purify a batch of synthetic Delta-9 THC.

KEWL!  What kind of resin you using, and how many liters of it does the column hold? (if the information is not proprietary)  Sigh....some times I miss the Bloodmines of Boulder....

[grampster]

I'm feeling a bit fiesty tonight.  I don't think that a "license" ought be necessary for any reason in a free society with a free press.  Antisocial behavior is exposed by a free press.  
Driving is necessary for life.  Transportation should be easy and the lack of it stultifies productivity and wealth creation.  Most draconian driving law punishments only make life miserable for normally law abiding free people.  Chronically hazardous drivers could care less about the law.  Ergo driving should be a civil right and a drivers license is another way government controls free men; quite cavalierly I might add.
  Licenses for the trades are nothing more than gubmints way of infringing upon free men and the confiscation of wealth.  Money means power.  Who should be most powerful, free men or government?  Free men should regulate themselves, but should join together to make sure mutually agreed upon negative behavior is frowned upon.  Creativity is lacking in this regard, imho.

[brimic]

KEWL!  What kind of resin you using, and how many liters of it does the column hold?

Running through a 10L Biotage Flash column. Not sure of the specifics of the resin cartridge, I'm just a dumb dial turning operator on this one and not the development chemist.

[cordex]

I thought the original post was not about condemnation of a behavior, rather I thought it was about petitioning the government to criminalize or prosecute violators of laws pertaining to drug use.

The primary function of government is to make and enforce laws in the interests of public policy.  Is unfettered drug use in the public interest?  That's what the debate is about.  Drug use is not AFAIK, a constitutionally guaranteed right as is RKBA.

That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment or the comment I was addressing.

With regards to this post, anything and everything can be justified using "public interest" - just depends on which part and how much of the public you care about.

Is widespread obesity resulting from poor diet and exercise in the public interest?  Does that justify government regulation of fatty foods and sedentary lifestyles?  What about possessions that tend to support sedentary lifestyles such as console games, televisions, computers, books, etc?  Of course, it would be rediculous for the government to ban or license Playstations and X-Boxes and restrict fatty foods to combat obesity, but that is completely acceptable with your line of reasoning of controlling people "for the public good".  Indeed, it is the inevitable result of your school of thought.  Note I didn't say inevitable conclusion, as there is no conclusion when it comes to the idea that one person should dictate to others how to conduct their personal affairs.

The desire to control people's personal lives through threat of deadly force "for the public good" and the mind-set that you or your agents can and should live other people's lives for them in the "public interest" is contradictory to the ideal of freedom.  One cannot advocate both.  That is what this debate is about.  Not whether we should pass out heroin at grade schools.

[The Rabbi]

The desire to control people's personal lives through threat of deadly force "for the public good" and the mind-set that you or your agents can and should live other people's lives for them in the "public interest" is contradictory to the ideal of freedom.  One cannot advocate both.  That is what this debate is about.  Not whether we should pass out heroin at grade schools.

So you are either for total unrestricted freedom or you are a Stalinist?

[Paddy]

Licenses for the trades are nothing more than gubmints way of infringing upon free men and the confiscation of wealth

No, licenses for the trades are an ordered society's method of insuring some minimum competency among tradesmen.   Without enforcement of minimum standards, you would have everybody and their uncle holding themselves out as whatever they wanted to be.  The result would be chaos, rip-offs, shoddy workmanship and lawsuits up the kazoo.   You just had some surgery, didn't you grampster?   I'll bet your doctor was licensed by the state to perform that surgery.  Would you have rather shopped around a pool of unlicensed, self-declared 'surgeons' to cut you?  

Building codes are another legitimate use of 'police power' by the state.  You'll notice that earthquakes, for example, in third world countries without building codes do massive damage.  It is in society's interests to impose minimum standards on tradesmen, physicians, buildings, etc.

[grampster]

Riley,
I prefaced my remarks with the caveat that I was feeling fiesty, not intelligent.  
Sometimes I like to throw out a thought just to see what happens.

I actually believe that good government is a necessary leveling mechanism.  The problem is that good government is slowly frittering away because the sheeple are not participating in it as the founders hoped.  I serve on several appointed boards in my county and township, so I am putting my labor where my mouth is.  Our township supervisor is resigning and I'm angling to get appointed to the position.  I've been elected to that board as a trustee in the past.  If I get the job, first thing I'm going to do is cut the pay in half and find some land and try and get a township range built so we can edumacate kids in the shooting sports.

[Paddy]

The desire to control people's personal lives through threat of deadly force "for the public good" and the mind-set that you or your agents can and should live other people's lives for them in the "public interest" is contradictory to the ideal of freedom.  One cannot advocate both.  That is what this debate is about.  Not whether we should pass out heroin at grade schools

How, in your mind, does the regulation of drugs like herion and cocaine equate to a desire to regulate cheeseburgers, french fries, and xboxes?  As i said in a previous post, our government reflects the will of the people, and most people don't use drugs and don't want unrestricted access to them.  When't the last time an obese person broke into a house or held up a liquor store for money to go to McDonalds? See the difference?   Or are you so captive to your 'ideology' that you're unable to seperate it from reality?

[cordex]

How, in your mind, does the regulation of drugs like herion and cocaine equate to a desire to regulate cheeseburgers, french fries, and xboxes?

Both regulation of drugs and regulation of fatty foods/sedentary lifestyle are based in the same principle of controlling self-destructive behavior for "your own good".

When't the last time an obese person broke into a house or held up a liquor store for money to go to McDonalds?

The reasons given for banning drugs have been for the most part either targeting a given racial group's recreational drug or because of the toll they take on the user.  Prior to being banned, most drugs were typically available enough and cheap enough that resorting to robbery to finance a habit was unnecessary.  As well, the concept of "after the first, the rest are free" applies - if you're breaking the law in buying and using drugs, breaking another law against - for instance - robbery is not a large step.



Rabbi,

So you are either for total unrestricted freedom or you are a Stalinist?

Define "total unrestricted freedom".
If you're trying to imply that I believe I should be able to run up and whack someone in the head with a 2x4 then you're wrong.  That is behavior that the government is fully justified in punishing.

However, I do believe you should have the right to whack yourself in the head with a 2x4 as much as you want.

[The Rabbi]

Both regulation of drugs and regulation of fatty foods/sedentary lifestyle are based in the same principle of controlling self-destructive behavior for "your own good".

That's hardly the same thing.  Drug use has implications beyond the individual.  Obesity sometimes does too but until it becomes a major cost to the public no one will want to regulate it.  Nor is there an obvious target to regulate since a person could make himself obese by eating corn flakes.
But then you agree that controlling immigration is counter to the idea of freedom and we need open borders, right?

[cordex]

That's hardly the same thing.  Drug use has implications beyond the individual.

Nearly all actions have some implications beyond the individual.  I'm not sure why someone poisoning themselves to death on an arbitrarily designated chemical compound is considerably worse than any other method they want to use to destroy themselves.

Obesity sometimes does too but until it becomes a major cost to the public no one will want to regulate it.

Major cost?  At least http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/testimony/obesity07162003.htm'" target="_blank">$117 billion per year in 2000 according to Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona.  Much, much more when type 2 diabetes is considered.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse puts their estimate at the cost of all illegal drugs combined at http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/costs.html'" target="_blank">$97.7 billion.  Dealing with alcohol (a legal drug) alone, the costs are around $148 billion.

Obesity and the conditions it causes currently costs our nation more than all illicit drugs do combined.

Nor is there an obvious target to regulate since a person could make himself obese by eating corn flakes.

Some foods are more fattening than others.  Foods with more greases, refined sugars and such are worse for you, right?

I have no more desire to pay for some coke-fiend's health care than you do.  Less, probably, as I would prefer to let someone who makes the willful decision to destroy themselves in such a fashion achieve their goal or at least depend on their loved ones and charities instead of the communal pocketbook.  But if you're going to say "Your actions affect me because if you get hurt and can't pay for yourself, I have to pay for you.  Therefore, upon pain of imprisonment, everyone is forbidden to _____________," then you need to consider that everyone risks their life and health (and thus, our money) every time they drive into work, walk in the park, have sex, move furniture, ride a bike, eat at a restaurant, and anything else they might do.

The solution as I see it is not to work legislatively to dictate how people should live their lives to be less of a burden (or risk of a burden) on society, but to change the rules in society to shift the burden of responsibility for caring for ourselves to ... well ... ourselves.

But then you agree that controlling immigration is counter to the idea of freedom and we need open borders, right?

No.  When exactly did I mention immigration?

Oh, right.  Now I get it.  Because I'm not rabidly anti-drug, I have to be a dyed-in-the-wool capital "L" Libertarian lackey with complete adherance to the party line.  Is that about what you're trying to imply?  

[The Rabbi]

Tell me, what would persuade you that your point of view is incorrect?

As far as immigration: I have noticed that most "dyed in the wool Libertarians" become statists when it comes to immigration, advocating mines, bombs, and open season on immigrants and public lynchings for employers who hire them.  I guess freedom stops at the border.

[Guest]

I agree with masterpiece arms. I am for individual liberty. Welfare-state consequences of liberty - positive or negative - are not relevant.

[cordex]

Tell me, what would persuade you that your point of view is incorrect?

My point of view with regards to what, exactly?

With regards to personal responsibility?

As far as immigration: I have noticed that most "dyed in the wool Libertarians" become statists when it comes to immigration, advocating mines, bombs, and open season on immigrants and public lynchings for employers who hire them.  I guess freedom stops at the border.

*laugh*
Rabbi, I haven't mentioned immigration but you've gone ahead and attacked two positions I haven't even taken.

I haven't said we should mine the borders or solicit terrorists and their families to come on in or even said anything about immigration, emmigration or listening to Lynard Skynard.

[Antibubba]

What about hemp?  Here's a plant that has thousands of uses, from high quality paper to biomass fuel material, but it is banned because it looks too much like marijuana.  In fact, Hearst got it banned because it threatened his income-he had a lot of forestry interests that would have suffered if paper was made from hemp instead of wood.  If you see any hemp products in the United States you can be sure they were imported.

Sounds to me like banning certain semiautos because they look like full-auto guns, when really it's to get rid of guns entirely.

[brimic]

Here's a plant that has thousands of uses, from high quality paper to biomass fuel material, but it is banned because it looks too much like marijuana.  In fact, Hearst got it banned because it threatened his income-he had a lot of forestry interests that would have suffered if paper was made from hemp instead of wood.

Hemp was at one time one of the largest cash crops in my state, especially around the area where I grew up for national defense purposes. The crap still grows wild in large quantities in some areas. It wasn't banned becuase of drug purposes, but because it was a strong competitor to some of the powerful old money types.

[Guest]

The hemp argument is a little hollow these days. yes it was a great commodoty in its time. However, that was a time that came before modern synthetics. The fact of the matter is that the modern hemp movement is entirely focused on attempting to gain public acceptance towards legalization. Im not against marijuana legalization, but I am a firm believer in calling a spade a spade. The fact is that commercial viablility of hemp has been pretty firmly disputed by all the Canadian farmers that lost their livelyhood when they bought into the idea and went bankrupt with a crop that noone had any use for.

[atek3]

Building codes are another legitimate use of 'police power' by the state.  You'll notice that earthquakes, for example, in third world countries without building codes do massive damage.  It is in society's interests to impose minimum standards on tradesmen, physicians, buildings, etc.

Wrong wrong wrong.  Thirld world countries without MONEY have earthquakes that cause massive damage.  Pakistan and Iran have incredibly powerful albiet byzantine building codes, however without money, the codes aren't followed.  America is a rich country, our buildings survive quakes because we're rich, not because the government mandates that carpenters get paid prevailing wage and the littlest addition to your property requires government approval.  

atek3

[atek3]

Well, just to take a contrarian position, drug use inevitably leads to addiction and it is not long before the used is completely unable to function.  He/she becomes dependent on society and engages in other, sometimes violent, criminal behavior.

That's total nonsense.  Might I recommend Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use by Jacob Sullum, a scholar with Reason.

You really ought to visit colleges, Stanford and UC-Berkeley in particular.  I'd say somewhere between a third and a half of the students there have tried drugs.  And the vast majority get a little older and pick up more interesting hobbies and quit.  

atek3

[The Rabbi]

You really ought to visit colleges, Stanford and UC-Berkeley in particular.  I'd say somewhere between a third and a half of the students there have tried drugs.  And the vast majority get a little older and pick up more interesting hobbies and quit.  

atek3

What a great rec for drug use!

Actually, "drugs" is a pretty broad category.  When those in favor of legalization talk about them they invariably invoke the guy home from work on a Friday night relaxing on his couch with a joint.  Who could object to drugs if that is what we mean?
People against it invariably invoke the "pipe-head" a half-crazed spectre ready to murder for his next fix.  Who could be in favor of that, if that is what we mean?

Tell me, what would persuade you that your point of view is incorrect?

My point of view with regards to what, exactly?

Are you being disinegenuous or are you not taking a position in this debate?