|
Why do I have to hear about your drug
agenda in my Second Amendment debate? There is a political party
and any number of discussion areas dedicated to the promotion of the legalization of drugs. Please
stop injecting your drugs into my freedom efforts! The Second
Amendment will secure your right to freedom of speech for whatever cause you
support, but won't you please consider how your drugs are detrimental to my
Second Amendment efforts?
While the Libertarians are screaming and
slamming keyboards, let me ask the rest of you if it makes sense to inject the
legalization of drugs into the Second Amendment debate when we have a public best represented by a bunch of misguided moms whose vote
is swayed by RosieO, or by how a politician kisses his wife on television? Their
votes get changed by sighs or facial expressions during a presidential debate, or when Hillary's
personal space is violated. We are not talking
rocket science, here, just common sense. Much has been said, recently, of the
importance of the "war of words" in the struggle for our liberty. See http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm,
for an excellent example. In such a delicate environment, should
drugs be part of our Second Amendment debate?
I don't pretend to have the answer to the drug
debate, but I do know that a few topics are guaranteed to disrupt and divide a
discussion group. Drugs is one of those topics with a long record of disrupting
and dividing a Second Amendment Group. Ask any 2AM discussion group moderator!
Is there not every reason
to believe that the topic has the same affect on the voting public? Should we
not consider that voting public a greater discussion group
that is especially important as the elections near.
I have great respect for the Libertarian
platform, admire their stand on The Second Amendment, and could not agree more
with their protest against the growing and intrusive government. No one can deny
the contributions of Big L or little l contributors to The Second Amendment
efforts. But how many Second Amendment activists share my concern that the drug
topic detracts from the Second Amendment debate? How many flinch when an
otherwise encouraging and inspiring speaker or writer includes the drug topic in the
Second Amendment argument? Common sense should dictate that our efforts to
retain Second Amendment Rights depend on attracting a majority of Americans
voters to our side. You can theorize and philosophize until the cows come home,
but at this time in our history, drugs are a negative factor in the minds of the
very "mainstream Americans" we are trying to win over
in the Second Amendment debate.
We all appreciate the sincerity of civil
libertarians, their dedication to principles, and their willingness to never
waiver an inch when it comes to those principles. The results in each and every
election year is very similar to this year's experience. There is not a nice way
to point out the fact that the Libertarian Party is nearly invisible. I am
convinced that their drug platform does them the most harm. The average voter is
turned off by any effort to legalized drugs, and it taints the entire program.
My firearms rights won't wait! The dedicated
civil libertarians may have the patience and, in fact, have no choice but to
wait for a change in attitudes. In the meantime, firearms rights are rapidly
disappearing. It makes sense to me to watch the "professionals" in the
world of elections as they come together in the middle to win elections,
delicately avoiding the hazardous topics. Ironically, guns are one of those
topics in this year's presidential elections. Should we not learn from the
"professionals"?
Just repeating a "drug legalization" theory over and over does not
make it the truth. It may start to sound good when repeated in discussion groups
and certain sound bites may even appear to be accepted when you rarely see an
opposing opinion in your discussion or peer groups. And it may very well be the
truth of the future, but that future depends on winning the battles of the
present, which, again, depends on winning the votes. Don't forget the very many
discussion and peer groups that not only do not favor legalization of drugs, but
consider the proposal offensive.
Take my group, for example. A group by age and
learned values. I grew up under "old-fashion values" and went to
school to learn the three "R"s where drugs weren't a problem or part
of the curriculum. History was taught as it should be in the "old fashion
schools" that we all yearn for (he said, sarcastically), where drug use was
prohibited.
A career in law enforcement exposed me to the
many aspects of drug abuse that pressure society. I have arrested the wasted
abusers, counseled
concern parents, and worked with the numerous social
efforts trying to wean the wasted away from drugs. I was assigned to the
narcotics unit during the Haight-Ashbury and Timothy Leary heydays, and not
unfamiliar will the rhetoric, pro and con. I am convinced that outside
of medical purposes there is no redeeming social value in getting loaded on the
drug of your choice, and that includes alcohol. If not for medical purposes, how
does a civilized person justify using a substance that is intended solely as a
means to mess up your head?
I say this to bolster the spirits of Second
Amendment Enthusiasts who share my values and my concern for the injection of
differing agendas into our Second Amendment efforts. Drugs, black helicopters,
and the NWO are legitimate concerns that would be best discussed ELSEWHERE!
Please, can't we keep them out of the Second Amendment debate.
The "war on drugs" will continue as long as
parents of teenagers outnumber libertarian types. Typical of crime victims,
distraught parents and family members will continue to demand enforcement
against drug distribution and use. It is one thing to theorize
and philosophize about drug legalization, and another to watch the tragic affects of
drugs on a family. Especially if it is your family or a family you care about.
It is easy to call them victimless crimes when it is not your daughter getting
wasted, your husband losing his paycheck to gambling on Friday, or your sister
getting tricked out by some pimp. How easy it seems to condone someone else's
daughter's life as a whore!
I
have always felt much sympathy for the millions of frustrated parents and family members who
demand that every effort, including the war on drugs be continued. And again,
common sense should make it obvious that it is those very parents of teenagers
who can make the difference in the coming elections. I will not deny the
pro-drug element their voice, but when you have an agenda that has the
legalization of drugs as a priority, the legalization of smoking, snorting,
injecting and eating mind altering substances, the arguments are going to be a
lot of theorizing and philosophizing, and pretty much one-sided. You have to go
to great lengths to legitimize getting wasted as an acceptable social activity.
It is consuming The Second Amendment Debate at a time when winning the vote
should be the priority.
The "war on drugs" is a subject that
many may be considering from an erroneous view. We have not lost the war on
drugs any more than we have lost the war on rape, robbery, or burglary. We
continue to judge those actions as deviant and deserving of criminal sanction.
If I was in favor of the legalization of rape, then I could easily justify the
act by making notice of the history of failed rape enforcement. After all, we
keep arresting them and putting them in jail, but they keep on raping. Tell the
women that the solution is to make rape legal? Or, consider NAMBLA, the North
American Man Boy Love Association. It is dedicated to one goal--making it legal
for adult men to be able to have homosexual sex with young boys, without any
negative consequences from society. There's a real vote-getter.
The failure of prohibition is used most often
to justify the legalization of drugs. The demand for alcohol was so great, and
the profits so lucrative, that criminals would go to any length to supply
contraband liquor. The elimination of crime, violence, and profit is the
justification for the end of prohibition, and the argument, as well, for the
legalization of drugs.
Pardon me? Al Capone has been replaced by millionaire
businessmen who control the transportation unions and liquor industries and we
are supposed to believe that something is different? These same millionaire
businessmen use the millions made from liquor to buy clout with the Governor of
the state and/or Mayor of big cities to retain their liquor based power industries.
Those millionaire liquor barons buy more votes and politicians than you and I can muster for any
given election. What has changed? The greed and corruption of the past as
portrayed at http://www.history.ohio-state.edu/projects/Ram's_Horn/DontShoot.htm
has not changed.
The violence may be handled better, but the corruption and enormous profits are
just more sophisticated. Are you impressed that a Fedora and Tommy gun has been
replaced with a pin-stripped suit and a Mont Blanc pen?
And that argument totally ignores the misery
and despair of alcohol abuse that caused this nation to consider prohibition in
the first place. Prohibition may have failed, but the misery and despair is
rampant in our society and has multiplied. The very destructive social
consequences of the legalization of alcohol is evident to all, and it is
reasonable for many to believe that justifying MORE poison by comparing it to a
proven poison is not an acceptable argument. Something taught to me in that
old fashions education system won't let me buy it.
Legalization would provide a tax stamp and
create a government bureaucracy to replace the drug dealers. That sounds more
like a Liberal program, to me, than anything a Conservative would support. I
prefer the dealers be kept in the gutter with the abusers, rather than providing
them the credibility of a government office! I suspect the influence of many
whose primary goal is to legalize marijuana, but appreciate the efforts of civil
libertarians who deplore the growing influence of government. Common
sense should dictate that these efforts have no place in the Second
Amendment Debate where we are trying to affect an election.
Let us concentrate our efforts on The Second
Amendment. It's the GUNS, stupid!
|
