Talk-Polywell.org

From: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... speaks-out

[Full disclosure: Feldman has been a gun industry source of mine for many years and is a character in my own recent book on a leading pistol company by the name of Glock.]

Now Feldman is up to new and characteristically interesting doings. He has formed an unconventional gun rights group seeking to challenge the NRA’s hegemonic status on the issue. Independent Firearm Owners of America promises to push for pro-Second Amendment policies that also seek to diminish crime. On its board of directors I see Daniel Abel, a prominent New Orleans plaintiffs’ attorney who once helped lead the city’s (unsuccessful) liability lawsuit against the gun industry. If Abel and Feldman are on the same side, something fascinating is afoot.

Feldman’s first big initiative at IFOA is marijuana legalization. You read that correctly. The guns-and-dope lobby is born. All kidding aside, Feldman makes a coherent argument: that responsible gun owners ought to give marijuana legalization a close look.

Feldman and I correspond. FYI.

From the comments:

Page 7, 04/25/2012 09:59 AM

I see gun rights and drug legalization as the same civil rights discussion. The unintended consequences of the War on Drugs have been devastating: corrupt police, violence, innocents being harmed (by both police and criminals), crowded jails, crowded court systems. We need to end this insanity now. If this country truly believes in liberty and personal freedom, then if I have the right to own a gun I also have the right to decided what I can put into my own body.

BTW can any of you Prohibitionists point out to me to the Dope Prohibition Amendment?

Republicans should be outraged at the violation of our Constitution. Funny thing. They support it. Rule of law be dammed (misspelling intentional to avoid the filters).

I would be the first to shoot someone or take away there gun if they behave irresponsibly with it. The use of drugs by definition impacts judgement and removes/lessons the ability to behave responsibly. Someone with a gun is not inherently out of their mind. Someone taking drugs is inherently out of their mind. Arguing they are the same is complete idiocy. Just like trying to take the gun manufacturers to court for making guns. People choose to kill people, guns do not choose to kill people.

More idiocy Simon. More seeking to blame others for bad personal choices.

Complete bullshit.

ladajo wrote:I would be the first to shoot someone or take away there gun if they behave irresponsibly with it. The use of drugs by definition impacts judgement and removes/lessons the ability to behave responsibly. Someone with a gun is not inherently out of their mind. Someone taking drugs is inherently out of their mind. Arguing they are the same is complete idiocy. Just like trying to take the gun manufacturers to court for making guns. People choose to kill people, guns do not choose to kill people.

More idiocy Simon. More seeking to blame others for bad personal choices.

Complete bullshit.

So how about alcohol? Should we reinstitute Alcohol Prohibition to solve that drug problem? If not why not? Love to hear your reasoning on that.

If you look at the stats legal alcohol causes 10X to 20X the problems of all the illegal drugs combined. Where is the outrage? Where are the calls for prohibition to solve the problem?

I do know how to reduce the drug problem though:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/

MSimon wrote:

ladajo wrote:I would be the first to shoot someone or take away there gun if they behave irresponsibly with it. The use of drugs by definition impacts judgement and removes/lessons the ability to behave responsibly. Someone with a gun is not inherently out of their mind. Someone taking drugs is inherently out of their mind. Arguing they are the same is complete idiocy. Just like trying to take the gun manufacturers to court for making guns. People choose to kill people, guns do not choose to kill people.

More idiocy Simon. More seeking to blame others for bad personal choices.

Complete bullshit.

So how about alcohol? Should we reinstitute Alcohol Prohibition to solve that drug problem? If not why not? Love to hear your reasoning on that.

If you look at the stats legal alcohol causes 10X to 20X the problems of all the illegal drugs combined. Where is the outrage? Where are the calls for prohibition to solve the problem?

I do know how to reduce the drug problem though:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/

The Alcohol argument pretty much shuts down most anti-DRUGS!!! positions. Alcohol is a recreational drug that's been legalized, it cause's a myriad of harmful effects including permanent liver damage and death if it's dosage is not carefully monitored. As one of the side effects of Alcohol intoxication is a loss of judgement and self control, self-medicating with it can be especially dangerous.

We could easily fill the forums with links, statistics and news articles about Alcohol intoxication cause's untold death and destruction to society. It's somehow acceptable yet other less dangerous recreational drugs are not. The reasoning ultimately falls to a chicken vs egg circular argument. Illegal recreational drugs are bad because their illegal. Legal recreational drugs are good / ok because their legal. Making illegal drugs legal is bad because their illegal.

The only honest way around that argument is for a anti-drug proponent to announce their support of all recreational drugs illegal, or at least making Alcohol illegal. Then they can honestly use the reasoning of "It's bad because it's destructive", otherwise their just hypocrites and get pissed when you point it out to them.

palladin9479 wrote: The only honest way around that argument is for a anti-drug proponent to announce their support of all recreational drugs illegal. . .

Nonsense. THC is an hallucinogen that makes people delusional. It has many severe effects completely unlike alcohol. Case in point, anyone who uses THC in any of its forms has a 5,000% higher chance of having a psychotic episode than someone who does not.

It's only because you ignore the facts that you can pretend you have a justifiable position. Reasonable people aren't convinced by your bullshit.

GIThruster wrote:Case in point, anyone who uses THC in any of its forms has a 5,000% higher chance of having a psychotic episode than someone who does not.

What is the baseline here?

Not sure what you're asking but the study and statistic was sourced in one of the druggie threads about 6 months ago. Basically, if you fall into the group of those who have used cannabis, you have a 5,000% higher chance of suffering a psychotic episode. It's not surprising. Psychosis entails hallucinations and delusions--the stuff dope causes. I have a close friend who works in a day clinic and they pole who uses. Basically, everyone who comes in their door uses. Everyone. They never see exceptions. You can argue that the deficiency exists that causes the episodes and this also causes them to seek out drugs, but as we can't examine that cause/effect it's best left as a correlation.

I'd like to see the absolute numbers in terms of risk.

If we accept the arguement that those who promote prohibition also promote the drug trade, then it stands to reason that those wishing to end prohibition should support police efforts against the drug trade, since prohibitionists and drug dealers are in effect one and the same.

The drug cartels that promote prohibition will not accept defeat at the hands of those who vote to end prohibition. The only way to safeguard any voter repeal on prohibition is to wage war against the drug cartels.

What I do support is a change in strategy and tactics, if what you keep doing fails to change long term outcomes this must be recognized. The main thrust against both prohibition and illicit drug use should be against the top echelon of the drug trade; bent politicians, bankers, corrupted intel agents and police.

choff wrote:If we accept the arguement that those who promote prohibition also promote the drug trade, then it stands to reason that those wishing to end prohibition should support police efforts against the drug trade, since prohibitionists and drug dealers are in effect one and the same.

The drug cartels that promote prohibition will not accept defeat at the hands of those who vote to end prohibition. The only way to safeguard any voter repeal on prohibition is to wage war against the drug cartels.

What I do support is a change in strategy and tactics, if what you keep doing fails to change long term outcomes this must be recognized. The main thrust against both prohibition and illicit drug use should be against the top echelon of the drug trade; bent politicians, bankers, corrupted intel agents and police.

I assume you either haven't read, or didn't understand my analysis of the situation. The drug war, as currently constituted is nothing more than a holding action. It has successfully kept us from going into China-like addiction rates, but it has not been successful at wiping out the illegal drug industry.

As I have pointed out, were we to fight it as we would an actual war, (by KILLING drug traders) we might be able to do something about the bottom line of drug usage and addiction. (the 2% of the population, which appears to be the tolerance threshold of our society.)

The problem is, the Public has no stomach for what it would take to actually win, and so we are relegated to fighting these endless non-decisive conflicts with the illegal drug industry.

Now you say you support a change in strategy and tactics. What strategy and tactics do you think will work, and that People will accept?

Concentrate resources on money laundering and financing by banks, and arrest/impeach those politicians who block legitimate police efforts. Shut down the intel sections that transport the drugs.

Mainly, the pro and anti legalization camps have to stop battering each other and realize they're being played by the puppet masters at the top. Best if they don't agree with each other, that would give the big shots a target to formulate counter strategy against. Pro and Anti have to become the antisynthesis since the top players are Hegelists. If you take them down, you'll also be nailing the same crooks that have caused the financial crisis, it's the top of the 0.1%, social justice via real justice.

Shut down the intel sections that transport the drugs.

That would shut down totally every intel agency in the world. Where will they get money for black ops? Or the criminal contacts they need to operate?

Restore the status quo ante. Legalize. Anything else is lipstick on a pig.

As long as the arbitrage profits are so large (weeds = gold - by weight) they will be tempted.

Think about this - generally wheat is not a sought after commodity for smuggling operations.

The banks will not shut down laundering - it is too profitable.

Follow the "Narco Dollar" links here:

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/why- ... ohibition/

To get you started - link #1

http://www.narconews.com/narcodollars1.html

MSimon wrote:The banks will not shut down laundering - it is too profitable.

Follow the "Narco Dollar" links here:

http://classicalvalues.com/2011/11/why- ... ohibition/

To get you started - link #1

http://www.narconews.com/narcodollars1.html

If the banks can't be stopped from laundering and the intel org's from smuggling, then legalization is also doomed, since as you say, these groups plus drug cartels promote prohibition.

Legalize one drug, and they will create demand for another and push the prohibition of that new drug, they will fight legalization every step of the way.

That's why I suggest the only hope is for people on the bottom end of the pyramid(pro and anti legalization) to join forces against the top echelon. You don't need new laws or organizations, equality of enforcement will have a profound impact on societies ill's.