Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[tpaine]

Ms. Nancy Snell Swickard - Publisher Shotgun News P. O. Box 669, Hastings, NE 68902

Dear Ms. Swickard,

I was very distressed to see the remark of one of your subscribers which you quoted on page 8 of your October 1 (1996) issue. The support of the "Drug War" by anyone who values the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is the most dangerous error of thinking in the politics of the "gun control" debate. This error is extremely widespread, although there have been some recent signs that some Americans are seeing through the propaganda of the Drug Warriors which affects all levels of our society.

Sadly, major players in the defense of the 2nd Amendment (like the NRA) show no signs of awareness of the part played by the Drug War in our present hysteria over violence. This is a serious error, because the violence produced by the Drug War is one of the main reasons that a majority of American citizens support gun control. Without the majority of a citizenry frightened by endemic violence, Mr. Clinton and his allies in the Congress would not enjoy the power they now possess to attack the Bill of Rights.

To understand the effect of the Drug War, we must understand it for what it is: the second Prohibition in America in this Century. I do not need to remind anyone who knows our recent history what a disaster the first Prohibition was. It is a classic example of the attempt to control a vice--drunkenness--by police power. It made all use of alcohol a case of abuse. It produced such an intense wave of violence that it gave a name--The Roaring Twenties--to an entire decade. It lead to the establishment of powerful criminal empires, to widespread corruption in police and government, and to a surge of violence and gunfire all over the land. And it produced a powerful attack on the Bill of Rights, including the most successful campaign of gun control laws in America up to that time.

Before the first Prohibition criminalized the trade in alcohol, liquor dealers were ordinary businessmen; after 1920 they were all violent criminals fighting for their territories. We had gang wars, and drive-by shootings, and the use of machine guns by criminals.

We now have the same effects of the first Prohibition in the present Drug War, and Americans appear to be sleepwalking through it with no apparent understanding of what is happening. It is testimony to the truth of Santayana's famous remark that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. We must understand that this has all happened before, and for the same reasons.

It is essential that defenders of the 2nd Amendment understand that the whole Bill of Rights is under attack by the Drug War, and that assaults on the 2nd Amendment are a natural part of that trend. What is the main premise of a gun-control law? It is that guns are implements which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. What is the main premise of Drug Prohibition? It is that drugs are substances which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. Both lines of reasoning say that because a few people abuse something, all Americans must be treated like children or irresponsibles. All use is abuse.

This is an extremely dangerous idea for a government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. It is a natural consequence that such thinking will lead to attacks on the Bill of Rights, because that is the chief defense in the Constitution against abuses of government power.

Since the beginning of the Drug War, no article of the Bill of Rights has been spared from attack. There has been an enormous increase in police power in America, with a steady erosion of protections against unreasonable search and seizure, violations of privacy, confiscation of property, and freedom of speech. We have encouraged children to inform on their parents and we tolerate urine tests as a condition of employment for anyone. All who question the wisdom of Drug Prohibition are immediately attacked and silenced. These are all violations of the Bill of Rights. Are we surprised when the 2nd Amendment is attacked along with the others?

We understand that opponents of the 2nd Amendment exaggerate the dangers of firearms and extrapolate the actions of deranged persons and criminals to all gun owners. That is their method of propaganda. Do we also know that Drug Warriors exaggerate the hazards of drug use--"all use is abuse'--in the same way formerly done with alcohol, and extrapolate the condition of addicts to all users of drugs? That is their method of propaganda. Most Americans are convinced by both arguments, and both arguments depend on the public's ignorance. That is why discussion and dissent is inhibited.

Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same.

Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments. Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition. We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.

If we do not explain to people that the fusillade of gunfire in America, the return to drive-by shooting, and our bulging prisons, come from the criminalizing of commerce in illegal drugs, we cannot expect them to listen to a plea that we must tolerate some risk in defense of liberty.

Why should we tolerate, for the sake of liberty, the risk of a maniac shooting a dozen people, when we cannot tolerate the risk that a drug-user will become an addict?

In fact, very few gun-owners are mass murderers and a minority of drug-users are addicts, but people are easily persuaded otherwise and easily driven to hysteria by exaggerating dangers. What addict would be a violent criminal if he could buy his drug from a pharmacy for its real price instead of being driven to the inflated price of a drug smuggler? How many cigarette smokers would become burglars or prostitutes if their habits cost them $200 per day? How many criminal drug empires could exist if addicts could buy a drug for its real cost? And, without Prohibition, what smuggler's territory would be worth a gang war? And why isn't this obvious to all of us?

It is because both guns and drugs have become fetishes to some people in America. They blame guns and drugs for all the intractable ills of society, and they never rest until they persuade the rest of us to share their deranged view of the evil power in an inanimate object.

They succeed, mainly, by lies and deception. They succeed by inducing the immediate experience of anxiety and horror by the mere mention of the words: Guns! Drugs! Notice your reactions. Once that response is in place, it is enough to make us accept any remedy they propose. An anxious person is an easy mark. They even persuade us to diminish the most precious possession of Americans, the one marveled at by every visitor and cherished by every immigrant, and the name of which is stamped on every coin we mint--Liberty. They say that liberty is just too dangerous or too expensive. They say we will have to do with less of it for our own good. That is the price they charge for their promise of our security.

Sincerely,

Amicus Populi

[Texaggie79]

Do you agree that state/local violations of our US Constitution are also unconstitutional?

Of course. However there is nothing unconstitutional when a STATE bans a substance not guaranteed in the BoR. The 18th amendment was only needed for a FEDERAL prohibition. All state prohibitions were still constitutional, even after the 21st repealed the 18th.

[tpaine]

"Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?"


hmm... perhaps the same reasons they didn't protect witchcraft in their own state. They saw it as a direct threat, and therefore a violation of other's rights.
286 -aggie-

Witchcraft & smoking are 'direct theats' only in the stange minds of communiarian prohibitionists, which certainly does NOT describe our Founders intent in the writing of the 9th amendment.
#302

Now you call our founders "communitarian [sic] prohibitionists"? -ta79-

Obviously not. -- I called YOU a "communitarian [sic] prohibitionist"

Really aggie, such silly replies only make you look like a roscoe. Is that the reputation you want?

[Texaggie79]

So you are denying the fact that many of our founders considered witchcraft to be a direct threat?

[tpaine]

"However there is nothing unconstitutional when a STATE bans a substance not guaranteed in the BoR." ta79

What substances are guaranteed in the BOR's? -- Name them. Show me.

[Roscoe]

JAMES MADISON, not Thomas Jefferson, wrote Federalist Paper #48.

famous Libertarian in history, George Washington.

Another example of the BIG lie.

[Texaggie79]

Gun powder, for one. I assume the 2nd is under the condition that gun powder also be equally seen as a right as is arms.

[tpaine]

"Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?"


hmm... perhaps the same reasons they didn't protect witchcraft in their own state. They saw it as a direct threat, and therefore a violation of other's rights.
286 -aggie-

Witchcraft & smoking are 'direct threats' only in the stange minds of communiarian prohibitionists, which certainly does NOT describe our Founders intent in the writing of the 9th amendment.
#302

So you are denying the fact that many of our founders considered witchcraft to be a direct threat?

I don't care what 'many' personally considered 'threats', as I say above, I only care about the intent of our constitution.

Get a grip on your logic, little roscoe-ite.

[tpaine]

Is that it? Any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed?

- How bout those associated with religion, aggie? - I religiously drink wine every night with supper. How can a state prohibit wine?

[dcwusmc]

No, roscoe, old thug, nothing about slamming smack. Nothing either way, nothing that confers authority to fedgov to prohibit it, either... and if a power is NOT ENUMERATED as being for fedgov, it is prohibited to it. Geeze, how simple. The Constitution is a LIMITATION of FedGov authority for the most part, with some limitations on the States thrown in for good measure. It is NOT a limitation on we, the People, no matter how your "heart" yearns for that power. Perhaps if you would take time to read and COMPREHEND the Constitution, you'd understand how it was designed to work and you could go out and get a life of your own instead of wanting to control the lives of your betters. (which would be 99.9 percent of the civilized world)

[Texaggie79]

I only care about the intent of our constitution.

Then you must be claiming that the founders had no intention of following their own constitution... because even TJ himself supported state witchcraft laws.

[Texaggie79]

It's in the eye of the people of each state. Someone could hold sacrificing virgins as religious practice, but that does not make it a protected right.

[dcwusmc]

SOME of the FF and SOME of each generation of Americans are socialistic prohibitionists... you come straight to mind. MOST OTHERS are not, but are willing to go along with your moronic prohibitions for a while, until the burden becomes TOO onerous. SOME of us see both the futility of, and the havoc wreaked on the Constitution by, such antics. We have no interest in doing drugs, but we are such a threat to your usurped powers that we must be demonized and marginalized at once, before we disturb the sheeple. You have NEVER made a case from logic or Constitutionality; rather you bluster and bully, not unlike that jackass of a bully from "Back to the Future" and with just as little sense as he had...

[dcwusmc]

What specific rights are missing besides the right to secede? You keep changing the parameters of your arguments... And when did Texas (or any state aside from Taxachusetts and Pennsylvania) become Commonwealths?

[philman_36]

The Making of Prohibition
Some form of limitation on spirits has been part of this continent's history since the first European settlers arrived. Originally, these limitations were imposed to prevent drunkenness among the colonists. An interesting theme that occurred throughout the temperance movement is the notion that despair promotes drinking. This correlation certainly had credence with the colonists, for whom survival was a constant issue.
By the time Captain Sedgewick established the first brewery in Massachusetts in 1637, spirits provided governments revenue-enhancement opportunities. Legislators enacted a rule that "No person shall remain in any inn or victualing house, 'longer than necessary, upon payne of 20 Schillings for every offense'" (1). Brewers and distillers were also taxed to gain revenue for the colonies. In 1644, New York Colony approved an excise tax on beer, wine, and brandy. In 1645, Massachusetts Colony restricted drinkers by declaring, "More than half a pint at one time is excess, and tippling, 'above ye space of half an hour'" (1) was forbidden.
In 1733, the Georgia colony had the dubious distinction of being the first colony to establish a prohibition edict. Despite General James Ogelthorpe's efforts to enforce a dry colony, he was thwarted by bootleggers from the Carolinas. The edict was rescinded in 1742.
My how things have changed. All things in context ol' boy, all things in context.

[tpaine]

"Tell me, Texaggie79, what reason would the founders give for not protecting the smoking of crack by private citizens?"


hmm... perhaps the same reasons they didn't protect witchcraft in their own state. They saw it as a direct threat, and therefore a violation of other's rights.
286 -aggie-

Witchcraft & smoking are 'direct threats' only in the stange minds of communiarian prohibitionists, which certainly does NOT describe our Founders intent in the writing of the 9th amendment.
#302

So you are denying the fact that many of our founders considered witchcraft to be a direct threat?

I don't care what 'many' personally considered 'threats', as I say above, I only care about the intent of our constitution.
Get a grip on your logic, little roscoe-ite.
327


Then you must be claiming that the founders had no intention of following their own constitution... because even TJ himself supported state witchcraft laws. -ros-tex-coe79

See above as to what I claim.
~If~ ol TJ wanted such laws, it is immaterial to the intent of our constitution. -- States are free to write all the silly laws they want, -- as long as such laws do not violate human rights as per the constitution.

[philman_36]

You originally said...In any civilized society with a functioning commonwealth, property owners must sacrifice certain rights.
I see you clarified your thoughts...
None, because that person hasn't any property rights to sacrifice.
...and you completely avoid the issue altogether.
Good job!

hmm... perhaps the same reasons they didn't protect witchcraft in their own state. They saw it as a direct threat, and therefore a violation of other's rights.
Perhaps? What a hoot!
Yep, yesteryears Salem Witchcraft trials have rolled over into today's drug laws.
Those little girls wound up being found out as petty little tyrants, jealous of others and guilty before all of bearing false witness.
Which is the more direct threat?

[tpaine]

Is that it? Any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed?

- How bout those associated with religion, aggie? - I religiously drink wine every night with supper. How can a state prohibit wine?
328 tpaine


It's in the eye of the people of each state. Someone could hold sacrificing virgins as religious practice, but that does not make it a protected right.
331 ta79

Killing virgins is murder. - And our human rights are protected by our constitution, not as seen "in the eye of the people of each state".
You are simply denying the founding principles of our republic, aggie. -- For shame.

[tpaine]

Do you agree that state/local violations of our US Constitution are also unconstitutional?
-tpaine-


Of course. However there is nothing unconstitutional when a STATE bans a substance not guaranteed in the BoR. The 18th amendment was only needed for a FEDERAL prohibition. All state prohibitions were still constitutional, even after the 21st repealed the 18th.
321 ta79

What substances are guaranteed in the BOR's? -- Name them. Show me.
324

Gun powder, for one. I assume the 2nd is under the condition that gun powder also be equally seen as a right as is arms.
326 -ta-

Is that it? Any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed?
- How bout those associated with religion, aggie? - I religiously drink wine every night with supper. How can a state prohibit wine?
328 tpaine


"It's in the eye of the people of each state."
-ta79- [shooting himself in the foot]

Just above [#326], you admitted that any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed.
NOW you claim that substances associated with religion are not..

Aggie, give it up. You are totally illogical on this issue.

[tpaine]

Do you agree that state/local violations of our US Constitution are also unconstitutional?
-tpaine-


Of course. However there is nothing unconstitutional when a STATE bans a substance not guaranteed in the BoR. The 18th amendment was only needed for a FEDERAL prohibition. All state prohibitions were still constitutional, even after the 21st repealed the 18th.
321 ta79

What substances are guaranteed in the BOR's? -- Name them. Show me.
324

Gun powder, for one. I assume the 2nd is under the condition that gun powder also be equally seen as a right as is arms.
326 -ta-

Is that it? Any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed?
- How bout those associated with religion, aggie? - I religiously drink wine every night with supper. How can a state prohibit wine?
328 tpaine


"It's in the eye of the people of each state."
-ta79- [shooting himself in the foot]

Just above [#326], you admitted that any substance associated with the right to bear arms/self defense is guaranteed.
NOW you claim that substances associated with religion are not..

Aggie, give it up. You are totally illogical on this issue.

[Roscoe]

prohibitionists

Legal prohibitions date back to the earliest days of our nation and even before, your hatred of our representative forms of self-government notwithstanding.