Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by 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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: banglist; copernicus3; corruption; drugskill; drugskilledbelushi; freetime; gramsci; huh; mdm; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 741-748 next last
To: tpaine
This is a good editorial piece that nicely connects the erosion of American liberties and dissolution of the Bill of Rights to the on-going drug wars. Those on this thread that cannot, or refuse to, see the connection between the drug wars and the general loss of freedoms in this country (including, but not limited to the assualt on 2nd Ammendment rights) are completely sold on the propaganda techniques of both the drug warriors and the gun grabbers, and which, incidently, makes up a large part of the argument forwarded by the author of the posted letter.

Perhaps not everyone has seen this recent ad - but it shows two teenage type boys in the family den getting stoned (smoking a bong) and handling a firearm. One of the boys comments that the gun is not loaded, then blam - the gun goes off and the editing implies that the one stoner shot the other dead. This ad represents a blatant example of the propaganda as discussed by the author where the government connects the issue of drugs and guns in a single advertisement, and plays on both the drug and gun fears to which your average American is now conditioned.

I would like to affirm tpaine's assessment that the drug wars are socialist in nature and are an abomination to our Constitutional form of government. Many people who support the drug wars think they are supporting conservative values, when in fact they are supporting the degradation of our Constitution and an elusive if not totally ficticious concept of a compelling societal interest that equates to socialist collectivism. Thinking people need to come to understand why this view is erroneous, and need to realize that recognition of the socialism that enters our backdoor via the drug wars does not mean that one need support the abuse of drugs in our society. is that drug abuse by some in our society (let's face it, there are about 2% of the population or so who would inhale gas fumes from your car if that's all that was available) is far more tolerable than government abuse of the Constitution. The question remains whether or not you want to live in a free society, or a society that only claims to be free.
41 posted on 01/11/2003 3:07:02 PM PST by citizenK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

'Facists' reading the news...

42 posted on 01/11/2003 3:07:53 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: citizenK
I would like to affirm tpaine's assessment that the drug wars are socialist in nature and are an abomination to our Constitutional form of government.


That famous colonial melodious sensation,
"Banned in Boston," played live before the
ganja-smoke-filled Continental Congress
-Intaglio etching courtesy of Ideologue's Historical Revisionism, Inc.

43 posted on 01/11/2003 3:17:28 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Puppage; caltrop
The treatment of addicts is not a reward.

So, the legalization of drugs is "treatment"? LOL.

Laugh away, pup. -- That was Caltrops concept, at #18.

------------------------

Why should your socialistic opinion about libertarians be viewed as honest?

Sorry, the FACT that I do not agree with the legalization of drugs does NOT make me a socialist.

Sorry, but I differ, and the facts in the article support my view. Why don't you try refuting them to make your case?

So you know...I am a rightwing conservative, MANY gun owner, christian.

Then you should realise that supporting the drug war works against your self interest.

Perhaps, you'd be better served by surfing over to the Ultra Liberal website that bears your moniker?

Thanks, but having been here for five years, FR 'serves' me fine, -- and the closet socialists here are about all I can stomach.

44 posted on 01/11/2003 3:18:31 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Calm yourself weikel, -- I just likes to jank your fuse.
45 posted on 01/11/2003 3:21:08 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad

46 posted on 01/11/2003 3:22:32 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
How are you conservative in any CJ? I can't recall a single socialist program on FR that you didn't like.
47 posted on 01/11/2003 3:25:09 PM PST by weikel (Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Good lord CultistJ !! -- That guy on the rights hairstyle makes him a dead ringer for Tricky Dicky !!

- You may have went too far this time CJ, -- I hear many of FR's bushbots are thinking of elevating Nixon to RINO Sainthood. As we speak they are out searching for miracles among the faithful.
48 posted on 01/11/2003 3:31:52 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
N.W.O. Bavarian Illuminati Maltese Build-a-burger stormtroopers out to hinder and thwart the inalienable rights of ideologues to engage in fantasy victimization politics, eh? ;)
49 posted on 01/11/2003 3:33:06 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
As long as drugs remain illegal the black market for drugs (read: the economy that will continue to exist and continues to cost the US billions in trying to stop it) will continue to expand. Do you forget the submarines that the government of our country and South American countries have found and destroyed, along with smuggling aircraft and vehicles that continue to arrive at our shores? The potential market for drugs is so high that it can fund almost any technology short of space travel.

If the government was really serious about the drug trade, we would have a military border along 100% of our shoreline and land borders. That would cost many more billions of dollars along with the prospect of not being able to go to a beach without seeing a soldier. Let's not forget the numerous civil rights involved.

If we were serious about legalizing drugs, the black market would collapse along with the vast majority of organized and violent crimes. The only real drawbacks is well, drugs would be illegal. However, so is alcohol, a substance that can kill in high enough amounts and also create enough "accidents" with vehicles that it is a problem. But we learned our lesson with that drug from prohibition.
Right now, we are neither serious about either one of these realities. We are at the halfway point, which means we spend billions on the drug war, which is just enough to keep mass drug use underground, yet not enough to ever stop it. Billions of our dollars are wasted each year on this, just think of what good could come out of the same money if put back into the hands of the people that make our country as great as it is.

The people that are addicted to drugs and trash their lives will continue to do so, only after legalization it won't be so lucrative.
50 posted on 01/11/2003 3:33:13 PM PST by anobjectivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
In a NUTshell.
51 posted on 01/11/2003 3:35:40 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: anobjectivist
drugs would be illegal should read legal
52 posted on 01/11/2003 3:35:40 PM PST by anobjectivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Actually, I don't think drugs should be legalized but should be distributed at cost by the various local Boards of Health to those certified as drug addicted. My sole interest is in eliminating the profit in addictive drugs. I couldn't care less about the drug addicts as I'm convinced they're beyond help.

The only people who seem to oppose my solution, interestingly, seem to be Christians who think it isn't Christian to not try to help the drug addicts. They never seem to care about those who, by continuing the current policy, are going to be induced into the drug culture and wind up in prison, prostitution and drug induced misery.

53 posted on 01/11/2003 3:43:35 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: citizenK; Cultural Jihad
citizenK: I would like to affirm tpaine's assessment that the drug wars are socialist in nature and are an abomination to our Constitutional form of government. #41 -CK-

Extremely well written & reasoned post, K. -- Thanks - As you can see below, FR's irrational gun-grabbing 'cultist' has arrived. Gotta love him for his comic relief.

That famous colonial melodious sensation, "Banned in Boston," played live before the ganja-smoke-filled Continental Congress -Intaglio etching courtesy of Ideologue's Historical Revisionism, Inc. 43 -CJ-

54 posted on 01/11/2003 3:46:00 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
What else do you know about the Netherlands? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are pretty socialistic up there where you can get paid plenty for doing nothing.

As far as bank robberies, making them legal would violate even the most basic of human rights, so your reductio ad absurdium need not apply here.
55 posted on 01/11/2003 3:46:53 PM PST by anobjectivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
So now we are subsidizing drug users? Well then, I'm addicted and I want my cocaine!

Seriously, we already have plenty of drug users in our country. Legalizing drugs is not going to change that by a large factor. Even with millions of drug users in the U.S, we still have the healthiest economy in the world.

Let's not forget the unspoken amounts of money that the drug trade supplies to drug dependent countries and keeps democracy from taking power there.
56 posted on 01/11/2003 3:50:49 PM PST by anobjectivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
N.W.O. Bavarian Illuminati Maltese Build-a-burger stormtroopers out to hinder and thwart the inalienable rights of ideologues to engage in fantasy victimization politics, eh? ;)
49 -Cultural Jihad-


In a NUTshell.
51 -roscoe-

Roscoe, totally agree, -- I find it refreshing that you've finally put CJ in his place. -- Thanks.
57 posted on 01/11/2003 3:53:56 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere."

The Bill of Rights doesn't CONFER rights. There is no right to regulate or ban either drugs or alcohol in the Constitution, therefore the fedgov has no authority to do so, no matter WHAT gets passed by the Congress. The STATES are another matter---if they want to ban'em, they have the legal right to do so. It's called the "reserved powers" part of the Bill of Rights. That's why they had to pass the "Prohibition amendment" to have the fedgov regulate liquor in the first place.

58 posted on 01/11/2003 4:01:16 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: anobjectivist
I've tried, obviously without success, to make the point that I don't favor legalization. What I'm advocating takes the profit out of illegal drugs, ensures they aren't available to any but those already addicted (unless you believe drug dealers will continue to deal even without any prospect of profit and still running the risk of draconian punishment) and will greatly reduce addiction in the US over time.

I'm happy to have someone suggest a better idea but I'm still waiting to hear it.

59 posted on 01/11/2003 4:17:21 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
There is no right to regulate or ban either drugs or alcohol in the Constitution, therefore the fedgov has no authority to do so, no matter WHAT gets passed by the Congress. The STATES are another matter---if they want to ban'em, they have the legal right to do so.

Not so, under the Supremacy clause, or under 'due process' of the 14th. - States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns. -- Study the threads posted article.
Also, on the 14th, -- Justice Harlan recognized:

     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, .
. . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777

_________________________________

Thus, the states can make legally 'reasonable' regulations under their reserved powers.

Outright premptive bans on various items of property cannot be rationalized as due process.

60 posted on 01/11/2003 4:31:17 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 741-748 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson