Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Can we delegate funds better than the government?

D**n skippy. I can make MUCH BETTER use of my earnings than they can.

@ jakes OP -

Heck yeah, legalize all the substances. And when the individual's habit interferes with their productivity to where they can't support themselves, their kids, and their habit - then by all means, we the taxpayers will be glad to pick up the tab for them. Everyone has a right to get stoned.

*SARCASM*

Me, I'll just stick w/ ethanol and caffeine...

Palladin wrote:then by all means, we the taxpayers will be glad to pick up the tab for them.

Wrong. That is welfarism which also needs to cease.

Everyone has a right to get stoned.

I agree. Rather everyone has a RIGHT not to have government tell them what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Palladin wrote:@ jakes OP -

Heck yeah, legalize all the substances. And when the individual's habit interferes with their productivity to where they can't support themselves, their kids, and their habit - then by all means, we the taxpayers will be glad to pick up the tab for them. Everyone has a right to get stoned.

*SARCASM*

Me, I'll just stick w/ ethanol and caffeine...

Well I for one feel that anyone collecting unemployment, WIC, welfare, etc (any free gov't money) should be piss tested to receive their benefits. I've been piss tested for every job I've had since '04, but these junkies getting my tax money can do all the drugs they want? No dice. So we oughta cut that crap out.

So we're already supporting these junkies...how does legalizing drugs make it worse? Right now when we find junkies, we arrest them, try them, and send them to prison. Who do you think pays the arresting officer's salary, the public defender's fees, and for their food, clothing, and operational expenses while their incarcerated? (hint: you and me)

Never used it, but I fully favor legalization and reasonable taxation for pragmatic (i.e. economic) reasons.

Plus criminalization does not work; I'm amazed the few that oppose legalizing marijuana on this forum above all others scream bloody murder about the government banning 30 rd magazines.

Its the same issue; existing supply only skyrockets in value, and now theres an often violent criminal enterprise attached to it too in the underground economy.

wylde007 wrote:Marijuana is a "gateway" drug after all...

.22 LR is a gateway gun.

Tweaker wrote:

wylde007 wrote:Marijuana is a "gateway" drug after all...

.22 LR is a gateway gun.

I never have bought into the "medical purposes" argument. Either you legalize it or you don't there is no real medical purpose. I also am not buying "it can be taxed" claim. It isn't a hard plant to grow and people have been rolling their own for years. If you tax the death out of it people will go back to growing their own. My main concern is that it really wouldn't do as much to reduce crime as some think it would. You have a complex network of drug dealers out there, if you eliminate their jobs they will find new ones. They won't be looking to go back to college. Maybe they step it up to new drugs that are still illegal(cocaine, meth, heroin). Perhaps they instead switch to violent crime like car jackings and home robberies. Just something to think about.

Nothing else has worked.

Seriously. Nothing.

They tried prohibition of alcohol and that failed. So they recanted and undid it. This is even easier. Just scrub the laws (well, policies, actually) in the next session.

Oops. Except then everything I said would become an issue. Government agencies with no work to do. Prosecutors with no cases to try. Prison guards with no criminals to guard. Law enforcement agents with no no-knock warrants to serve and BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of drug-forfeiture money gone.

Not to mention the hit to big pharma when people are no longer restricted to "government approved" medications to ease their pain or counteract their maladies.

Never tried anyof them, however I know plenty who have. They tell me the paralells between drugs and alcohol are staggering: THC is like beer and the harder drugs are like hard liqour. If that's the case, then set up the same system:

THC (like beer) can be purchased anywhere beer/tobacco can be purchased and under the same rule. Allow folks to grow their own just as folks aer allowed to home brew.

Just as you have to go to the ABC store for rum, you have to go to the pharmacist for harder drugs. Purchase amounts can be limited, clean needles sold, etc. However, no home growing/importing of the hard stuff.

In addition to all the above comments the Mexican drug cartels will all but dry up and blow away. As for the elimination of jobs that was mentioned above (somewhere) yes, however, an entirely new industry would emerge in opium growing, harvesting & processing.

Now, what folks need to understand is that, just like with freedom os speech, there may be consiquences down the road. I don't think there is anything on the books that would prohibit any employer from refusing to hire a pot smoker.

NRB451 wrote:

Palladin wrote:@ jakes OP -

Heck yeah, legalize all the substances.Yep,snort Sulfuric Acid...it's Legal...and will kill you dead. And when the individual's habit interferes with their productivity to where they can't support themselves, their kids, and their habit - then by all means, we the taxpayers will be glad to pick up the tab for them. Everyone has a right to get stoned.

*SARCASM*

Me, I'll just stick w/ ethanol and caffeine...

Well I for one feel that anyone collecting unemployment, WIC, welfare, etc (any free gov't money) should be piss tested to receive their benefits. I've been piss tested for every job I've had since '04, but these junkies getting my tax money can do all the drugs they want? No dice. So we oughta cut that crap out.

So we're already supporting these junkies...how does legalizing drugs make it worse? Right now when we find junkies, we arrest them, try them, and send them to prison. Who do you think pays the arresting officer's salary, the public defender's fees, and for their food, clothing, and operational expenses while their incarcerated? (hint: you and me)

A "marijuana junkie" ? You serious?

You do know it actually does have Medical benefits...

How about the Glaucoma patient,that can only focus afterwards of treatment.
How about the Cancer patient,that cannot eat or keep food down,yet their appetite,and thusly, their health is improved by it.

In your line of reasoning,
"we" should outlaw Aspirin,as it has caused many to feel "better" and "worse" at the same time.

Welcome to 2011.

We have bigger issues to deal with.

This is what I hate,
These types of posts and discussions...ALWAYS degrade to pre-conceived and uninformed negatives.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?cli ... lice+smoke

aw,screw this, I'm done again.

"You see, what we have here is a failure to communicate" I thought that would be a breath of fresh air. This is only a forum for discussion, not a brawling room. As I understand it, all are free to express ideas (right or wrong)

We are just communicating

GO STEELERS!!! my six year old sons likes the team, me.... it's the dolphins but ya'll know how that went

Drumstix61 wrote:

NRB451 wrote:

Palladin wrote:@ jakes OP -

Heck yeah, legalize all the substances.Yep,snort Sulfuric Acid...it's Legal...and will kill you dead. And when the individual's habit interferes with their productivity to where they can't support themselves, their kids, and their habit - then by all means, we the taxpayers will be glad to pick up the tab for them. Everyone has a right to get stoned.

*SARCASM*

Me, I'll just stick w/ ethanol and caffeine...

Well I for one feel that anyone collecting unemployment, WIC, welfare, etc (any free gov't money) should be piss tested to receive their benefits. I've been piss tested for every job I've had since '04, but these junkies getting my tax money can do all the drugs they want? No dice. So we oughta cut that crap out.

So we're already supporting these junkies...how does legalizing drugs make it worse? Right now when we find junkies, we arrest them, try them, and send them to prison. Who do you think pays the arresting officer's salary, the public defender's fees, and for their food, clothing, and operational expenses while their incarcerated? (hint: you and me)

A "marijuana junkie" ? You serious?

You do know it actually does have Medical benefits...

How about the Glaucoma patient,that can only focus afterwards of treatment.
How about the Cancer patient,that cannot eat or keep food down,yet their appetite,and thusly, their health is improved by it.

In your line of reasoning,
"we" should outlaw Aspirin,as it has caused many to feel "better" and "worse" at the same time.

Welcome to 2011.

We have bigger issues to deal with.

This is what I hate,
These types of posts and discussions...ALWAYS degrade to pre-conceived and uninformed negatives.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?cli ... lice+smoke

aw,screw this, I'm done again.

Uhhhh...what the hell are you talking about? First, I never said "marijuana junkie", so you can go ahead and take the quotations off of that. Secondly, I was arguing against drug prohibition. Did you not bother to read my previous post or even read the post you quoted in its entirety?? I argued that our system already supports "junkies" (read: cocaine, heroin, meth addicts, etc) and that legalizing drugs wouldn't cause a large influx of new junkies that need to be supported by social programs. I also pointed out that our current catch, hold, and release program of dealing with drug offenders is costing us considerably.

Think (and read) before you flame.

Lots of issues with drugs, penalties, and legalizing them. I'm on the fence but lets say I have a big problem with throwing someone in jail for having a bag of pot when a rapist or child molester walks because the jails are too full...

I used to take a much harder line on this than I do now. The more wisdom I gain, I see it as weed today is no different than alcohol was during prohibition. Even though I can count on less than one hand the times in my life it tried it, I no longer think it should be illegal. Regulated (and I can't believe I'm using that word) YES, illegal no. As far as hard drugs like coke and heroin, I have a less than favorable response to those types. While I don't partake in the evil weed, I too know some upstanding professionals who use it occasionally in the privacy of their own homes to relax and the funny part is, many of them don't drink alcohol. If a man (or woman) wants to come home after a hard day and smoke a bowl to relax, why's that so different than having a beer or glass of wine. I say let 'em smoke, to each his own.

Anybody know how to buy a used armored truck like a Loomis or Wells Fargo truck? Or maybe an MRAP? I figure that is what it is going to take to drive in relative safety after you add several new classes of impared drivers. "Wow man, it was like the road was breathing, Dude."

It had to be said.....



DWS = Driving While Stoned

As seems the obligory statement....

I've never used any of them nor do I have any desire to do so. If any or all of them became legal tomorrow I wouldn't bother to try any of them. Heck, I hate taking an aspirin for a headache. I'll try resting and just dealing with it for a while to see if it will go away on its own. That being said, I have some reservations about the war on drugs.


First, I there is no way to resolve it Constitutionally. Simply put, the Federal government has no such powers. The States on the other hand may dabble in such issues.

Second, there is a philosophical question concerning the legitimacy and practicality of legislating morality. Every attempt to legislate morality has failed and it is contrary to the core mission of why we created government in the first place, to protect our rights from encroachment by others. I.e. ethical violations. While some ethical violations are also immoral (depending on your religion) they don't need to be; just as immoral things don't necessarily need to be unethical. It is entirely possible for something to be legal (because there is no ethical trespass), but considered morally wrong by society. For example, there should be no restrictions on the possession and wearing of arms until an ethical violation occurs....a threat (brandishing), a action (murder, manslaughter, etc.), etc. Let's say that that world existed, that doesn't mean that communities could choose to shun the open carry or concealed carry of firearms or even their ownership. In much the same way as adultery should not be illegal between two consenting adults, communities can choose to decide that adultery is not socially acceptable behavior. This gets to the heart of grumps complaint about society not being able to handle it; the government can not save the people from themselves. The legality is irrelevant to that discussion as is illustrated by the fact that they are currently illegal, but yet we have serious issues with them anyways. The alcohol laws of places like Germany are good counter examples. Much less problems because people are taught how to drink responsibly instead of it being taboo.

Third, the economics of it doesn't make sense. Forget taxing it or other we can make money arguments. Let's simply look at what it costs us. As Bill and Wylde correctly pointed out costs society a huge sum of money to keep the charade going. Anytime the government implements a regulation there is overhead on society; it directly means there are other activities where we could direct that money and labor towards which will now never be realized. The war on drugs is sapping Billions from out economic bottom line every year. If no ethical violation occurs (most cases of illicit use), what has society gained by spending those Billions? Just like gun control, it doesn't work. It is a feel good measure which makes us think we have done something, but all we have done is transfered all of those resources from improving the lives of everyone to ruining the lives of people who have committed no ethical transgression. If an ethical transgression occurs the use or lack of use of drugs is irrelevant. Murder is still murder.

A secondary economics point is that the praxeological laws of human action and social cooperation don't allow for the legislation of morality to succeeded; it is demonstrably guaranteed to fail in an society which allows freedom in any extent. E.g. the Soviet Union had a thriving black-market for everything from guns to food to drugs to prostitution to you name it. As we always like to point out, banning guns only makes sure that the law-abiding don't have them. A ban does not remove demand and in fact it often increases the demand. E.g. Prohibition.

Fourthly, the war on drugs has absolutely destroyed American law. Warrantless searches, no knock warrants, forfeiture laws, etc., etc. Think about it, what exactly is being deemed illegal? It isn't the improper use, it is simply possession and use. Sounds a lot like the gun laws, eh? Take drunk driving as an example. We punish it based on an arbitrary limit. We are making it illegal to have a substance in your blood and of course we had to make it legal for the government to search you without a warrant to check your compliance. Either we as a society punish only ethical behavior or our government becomes tyrannical. I.e. we punish people for actions others don't like, but have no ethical violation...like machine guns, like suppressors, like hi cap mags, etc. etc. What we have today is the outcome of such thinking. Again, legality doesn't mean society must accept or consider it moral. E.g. gay sex should not be illegal, but communities and societies are free to consider those who practice it as immoral if they choose. Not all legal actions are honorable.

If we give the government the power to punish people because we don't like what they do even though no ethical violation occurred, we inherently are admitting that we are not our own; the government and society own us and can take from us anything the system deems. That is the antithesis to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

NRB451 wrote: Uhhhh...what the hell are you talking about? First, I never said "marijuana junkie", so you can go ahead and take the quotations off of that. Secondly, I was arguing against drug prohibition. Did you not bother to read my previous post or even read the post you quoted in its entirety?? I argued that our system already supports "junkies" (read: cocaine, heroin, meth addicts, etc) and that legalizing drugs wouldn't cause a large influx of new junkies that need to be supported by social programs. I also pointed out that our current catch, hold, and release program of dealing with drug offenders is costing us considerably.

Think (and read) before you flame.

I got ya bro,
may have read your post out of context,my bad.
Your 1st post was good.
All I am saying is I am against legalizing the more dangerous addictive ones.
I don't believe thc is physically addictive

Group hug?