Drug/alcohol users have a tremendous history of bringing harm to themselves and others, as shown by the statistics I posted. Society (although not always the law) views individual choices to imbibe as something personal that should not be infringed upon by government authority, short of criminal activity. Gun owners have a history of occasional accidental death and rare misuse or abuse, short of criminal activity. You have no problem condemning gun ownership (which happens to be a current partisan agenda) but you don't condemn using substances that are clearly contributing to not only criminal activity on a much larger scale and often at the decision making level, substance abuse is also known as a major contributor to our general relationship disfunctions which are costly and trammatic.
I don't want either choice outlawed, we have laws against criminal activity which is the correct place to focus our attention. Regulating personal choice for people who are decent law abiding folk is plainly an abuse of government authority. Using social drugs/alcohol for many people is a life coping mechanism that should be a personal choice, short of criminal activity.... then the abuse of substance that has influenced specific criminal behavior should be taken into account by the legal system, case by case. Gun ownership for many people is a matter of home security and personal protection that is far more effective at giving them peace of mind than having a police force that can be called. The fact is the police respond when a crime has been committed more often than they are able to prevent crime. When guns are used in commition of a crime, or possessed by known criminals, gun possession should be taken into account by the legal system, case by case. We shouldn't avoid conversations about the devastating effects of these materials (drugs/alcohol and guns) but we should also respect the specific circumstances of people who see personal benefits in possessing either. That is a consistant view. If you want a totalitarian police state, on the other hand, a consistent position would be to forbid possession or use of either. It is also consistent to simply argue for a party platform without exception. I see you doing this but I was refering to consistent reasoning in relation to topical position.
The argument about where to regulate alcohol/drugs is deserving of real discussion based on sound reason (as apposed to yes or no partisan agreement, which is uninformative), so is the argument about regulating guns. I know you will support your party's position, I don't know what thoughts you would have if you just took the time to consider such issues as a rational person. |
