Ore. high court rules medical pot users can carry concealed guns

Which brings me winding back to my original point: I don't like drugs. However, I realize that drug prohibition has largely failed, and I'd rather save the money on ineffective enforcement and avoid the massive amount of prisoners in jail for drug offenses alone.

 

It's a "Liberal concept" to legalize the usage of a plant as medicine, when its been used as such for thousands of years. Chemically created prescription pills are definitely a safer alternative. It's people like you that hold this country back.


Guns shouldn't be handled under the influence of ANY substance, legal or not.

 

Fixed... I work in the field of optometry/ophthamology. If someone came in wanting weed for their cataracts, we'd laugh for weeks

 

I do...federal drugs laws have absolutely no constitutional authority....to prove this point one only needs to look to prohibition of alcohol in the US...the congress had to amend the constitution to be able to do so and this has never been done for any drugs. as long as Oregon doesnt have a law prohibiting the carry while under the influence i see no problem with it...

 

same for GA...its legal to carry drunk but illegal to shoot unless in defense of life. so no drunk hunting or target shooting etc

 

Was this directed at me? If so, you drew the wrong conclusion from my post. I did not say that legalizing all drugs would increase the number of addicts. In fact, I said nothing of the sort.

What I said was that many, if not most of people who burglarize homes, break into cars and rob people, are drug addicts. This is lost in the whole "why are we locking up non-violent offenders?" argument. Do i believe that this country is well served by locking up a harmless pot head? No sir. But people who are chemically dependant on hard-core drugs-legal or not- will always reach a point at which they do not have the financial means to support their addiction- at which point they turn to crime.

That was my point.

 

why it reduces usage and reduces crime..... http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz1MpssfOXu

 

I understand. What I'm saying is that by legalizing the drug trade, you automatically take away a lot of people that make a lot of money and cause a lot of crime by dealing drugs (Bloods and Crips in the 80's with crack cocaine anyone?).

So why not totally negate this huge source of funding for these groups by legalizing the drug, and then deal with the addicts that are left? That's what I'm saying.

 

Thats one point of view, seen through a rosy-colored lens. Let's look at Oslo, Norway- home to over 10,000 heroin addicts who live, eat and inject dope on the government's dime. You aren't happy enough paying for other people's apartment and fatherless children? You want to pay for their drugs too? Oh, and legalizing dope doesnt take away the crime, either.

http://citynoise.org/article/2310
This explores the crime in Norway. Particularly the crime rate having risen, despite legalization

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2618910.ece
This is great- a written letter of apology from Oslo, Norway to all the tourists who will never return, because of the disgusting state of much of the city. Do you want to live in a neighborhood where you will walk your son/daughter down the street and have them see bums shooting up on the sidewalk?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/27/andrewosborn
This one discusses how Oslo is the heroin overdose capital of Europe, among other negative side effects of legalization and social welfare...

 

I'm not saying that legalizing drugs is a bad thing either- all I'm saying is that its not as simple as suddenly legalizing it and creating a free for all. Drug use, and all of the other things (like crime and public health) that are affected by drugs, is a complex issue.

 

x2.

I find it amusing how current "conservatives" claim liberals are socialists and fascists, even though socialism is a far left concept and fascism is a far right concept. It is literally impossible to be both.

I miss Goldwater.

The problem, by and large, with the US today is that most people are fucking ignorant. The public education system in this country has been failing for 30 years, and now those 30somethings are starting to become the bulk of the public.

This is what you get when you put morons in charge - people who don't know the differences in what they're complaining about.

I'll do you one better - do that, but also tax the fuck out of drugs. Like, crazy taxes. 100% tax. Want $10 of weed? You pay $20.

Then they can give the rest of us a break on our income taxes. Or balance the stupid fucking budget. Or whatever.

 

Guns and pot dont work to well at the same time. I had a accidental discharge in the blue bell ice cream!!!

 

This is a fantastic idea!

Get people hooked on a tax addiction. I like it.

Got a $1000/day heroin addiction? No problem, 5 hundo of that is goin' to the state/fed anyway! Half the people would quit because of the taxes.

 

So if you get high once a day you are impaired for the entire day? With that logic if you drink a beer you shouldn't drive all day either right?

 

I guess that would include tobacco...THE biggest drug problem in the world?

 

It's not the tobacco grown in a field that is the real problem, it's all the BS big tobacco puts in it to "enhance the flavor" which really means make you addicted.

When will our government wake up & cut the balls off of big tobacco & the petroleum industry. The free ride is over I am tired of seeing tax breaks go to the most profitable industries in our country while gas prices keep going up & end stage smokers are bankrupting healthcare.

Have a nice day!

 

Take away the tax brakes and guess what the price gos up...

 

Nicotine is the addictive element in tobacco.
Khaos posits you should not be able to handle a firearm under the influence of any drug.
I can only assume he includes tobacco (nicotine) in that statement.
And it would be nice to put the brakes on tax breaks.

 

Tax breaks for big tobacco?

The high price of cigarettes is almost exclusively the tax levied on cigarette sales...

 

I know...I pay over $5 tax on a can of Cope.