-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Indiana's Push for Medical Marijuana
- Thread starter hoosierdoc
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I know that the thread title talks about "medical marijuana", but the course of this thread, and basic human intelligence, demonstrates that this was never really about medical marijuana. Medical marijuana is, has been, and always will be, a stalking horse. Can we at least be honest enough to acknowledge that?
Pretty much done offering my perspective but I have to say I'm surprised at how many seem to favor a big overreaching government, not what I would expect from members of this forum. I consider pretty much anything that reduces the size/power of the government to be a good thing.
No, the one who lost his license for too many DUIs and was thrown in jail on contempt charges last time he was in court.
So that was MJ that caused that.... or alcohol... Or the fact he cant make decisions.... sounds like it didn't matter if he was 21 or not.
You mean kind of like all the propagan... um, I mean "studies" that claim mj will cure everything from hangnail to cancer to halitosis?
...and make you more attractive to women and more fun at parties.
I thought that part was true?
Yeah, dude. What ever lets you sleep
Like government taking the power to set quantity and age restrictions, control production through licensing, license and limit numbers of dealers, and track sales for tax purposes is going to shrink/emasculate it
And we can just fill the cells currently occupied by dealers with unlicensed dealers and DWUIs. Good plan
I'm sure it makes people think this is true.
I sleep fine. Wanting the government out of the business means there would be no dealer licensing requirement. It’s a plant. If having a babysitter control every aspect of your life is an appealing idea you must sleep like a baby at night knowing your every concern is taken care of for you.
Maybe you can get your dream government to ban fat people and vehicles larger than a Prius for you, you know, to get that bothersome stench out of your nose.
I think it's like a t-shirt I saw once that said, "I drink to make other people more interesting."
Personally I don't care what people consume at home, it's their business, not mine, not the government's. Where I have a problem is when they bring that consumption into the work place where it affects my livelihood and that of others working. I need some way to tell when people are potted out other than the smell on their clothes. Something like a breathalyzer for alcohol.
This has been my experience also. I have worked with some geniuses in electronics that after first break turned into worthless meat occupying a chair. They'd recover enough to get an hour or so of real work out of them, before the next break.
Give lip/get lip
I just disagreed with your desire for legalization, you’re the one who went all ‘why do you hate freedom’ forgetting that I should also be free to hold whatever opinions I wish
Make gun owners look like ***holes, or make them look like stoners. 6/half dozen
I don’t smoke it or take any drugs. I don’t even drink alcohol. I have no desire to alter my state of mind with those things. I support legalizing MJ, because it’s no one’s business what people ingest. It is people’s business for how people behave in public. It’s my business if someone has an altered state of mind while driving on the same road as me. It’s my business if a coworker fails to perform in a way that affects me. So ban the behaviors. It can’t be any harder to enforce than prohibition of those products.
This conversation has gotten way too personal. I mean. C’mon. You guys are saying that having a certain opinion on this or that side implies something about the other’s character. Maybe that’s not all that productive. It’s like the anti-gun people saying that people who could own guns are immoral and have the blood of victims on their hands. Not as extreme, but the same concept.
Maybe tone down the irrational projections. No, people who think mj should stay illegal don’t hate liberty. Necessarily. No, people who want it legalized don’t just want to use it. Necessarily.
It’s a valid logical comparison. You liking one and not the other is more likely to be the issue here.I'm sorry, but with all due respect, comparing an illegal drug that you want legalized with making guns illegal is not the way to win this argument.
Over in Illinois recreational pot will be legal starting Jan 1st but like they do for everything else still haven't figured out all the rules. One thing talked about that I am not sure if it is official policy is your DL or state id will be scanned when you buy from an official source. This could possibly be used as proof you are a user. So then buying at an FFL and filling out a 4473 you would be denied if honest or breaking federal law if you lie about drug use. You would not be breaking a state law so you could still buy from a private citizen but no new guns. Jim.
More about people attributing motives to other people's perspectives. Sorry for length, it just takes me a thought stream to get this idea out. I'm going to present two sides, so if you want to comment, please read all or read nothing.
Just like most subjects, opinions vary along a spectrum of beliefs. People have different reasons why they fit a particular part of the spectrum. Regarding the pro-legalization side, it seems the other side wants to say that there's only one reason why they want it legalized, it must be that they just wanna get stoned without fear being arrested. But that's not true enough to just blast the whole side with that one reason. People can have lots of reasons for their opinions and their opinion on this is no exception.
Yes. Some people want it legalized so they can use it without being prosecuted for it. And yes. Some people want to use it for medical purposes. That medical use is necessarily a stalking horse is bull****. It is at least to some, but not everyone. If you think it has to be that in every case, then you need to consider that maybe you're being at least a little ideologically motivated yourself about it.
Another reason for the pro side can have nothing to do with use, is the libertarian position that deals with all laws around usage of a thing: Society should base its prohibitive laws on actual harm done, and not prevention. So we should ban the harm caused by using the thing irresponsibly, rather than banning the ownership and use of the thing. Since a lot of gun owners oppose drug legalization, but favor gun ownership based on that same principle, they're selectively choosing the libertarian argument based on which suits them. There's some nuance there that I'll get to, but there are some people who use the libertarian argument to its fullest extent when it comes to guns, yet abandon that argument when it comes to other things they want banned.
And I get it, a lot of the people arguing in favor of legalization also seem to be users. And of course, for many of them, their use of the libertarian argument is just as much a matter of convenience too. Certainly the pro-pot people who use the libertarian argument for pot, but are also anti-gun, might fall into that category. But, even if their reasoning is only that they want to use it without fear of being arrested, wanting to use it is a valid reason to favor legalization. That's not an objectively "wrong" motive for wanting it legalized, even if their argument is disingenuous.
Keep in mind, I'm only addressing arguments and attribution of motives here, not whether or not it should or shouldn't be legalized. So there are plenty of reasons why someone might want marijuana legalized that aren't objectively "wrong". And if you think those reasons are objectively "wrong", that's an ideological component, not a rational one. And if you think it should stay illegal for subjective reasons yourself, okay. Fine. But don't try to turn that into an objective argument.
So on the other side, the same is true. Lots of reasons to have the opinion that marijuana should stay illegal. It doesn't mean they hate freedom. It doesn't mean they are evil statists or meddling busybodies. Earlier I talked about misuse of the libertarian argument. And that's true enough for a lot of people who want to own guns but don't want you to have your dope. But, it's possible to have a nuanced view of the libertarian argument. That's also a spectrum of belief too, regardless of what the Wookies say.
The nuanced libertarian view would be that there's a legitimate, objective point where one might rationally believe that it's not possible for an individual to own/use something and still be responsible with it. So only the craziest gun owners would take the libertarian argument to its logical extreme and say everyone should be able to own nukes too, or everyone should be able to use any drug for any purpose and do anything while influenced by them.
Rational people recognize that it's probably not possible for individuals to own/use nukes responsibly. We don't want that kind of power in the hands of just anyone. Within that spectrum of belief it is at least a little subjective where people might want to draw that line, but it is objective that there is a line with some things. It does not make those people evil statists that they want a line at all. It makes them rational.
Okay, so if that makes any sense to you, maybe we can agree to dispense with the less genuine attribution of motives and start assuming we all have our reasons, maybe some of those reasons are more ideological, and that's fine, as long as we admit that much, and maybe your reasons aren't any more or less genuine than the other. I know this is an internet forum, and we like to argue at each other and try to pound our ideas into unwilling minds, but I mean, c'mon. At least give people some benefit of doubt and not just assume the motive you want to attribute to them.
Just like most subjects, opinions vary along a spectrum of beliefs. People have different reasons why they fit a particular part of the spectrum. Regarding the pro-legalization side, it seems the other side wants to say that there's only one reason why they want it legalized, it must be that they just wanna get stoned without fear being arrested. But that's not true enough to just blast the whole side with that one reason. People can have lots of reasons for their opinions and their opinion on this is no exception.
Yes. Some people want it legalized so they can use it without being prosecuted for it. And yes. Some people want to use it for medical purposes. That medical use is necessarily a stalking horse is bull****. It is at least to some, but not everyone. If you think it has to be that in every case, then you need to consider that maybe you're being at least a little ideologically motivated yourself about it.
Another reason for the pro side can have nothing to do with use, is the libertarian position that deals with all laws around usage of a thing: Society should base its prohibitive laws on actual harm done, and not prevention. So we should ban the harm caused by using the thing irresponsibly, rather than banning the ownership and use of the thing. Since a lot of gun owners oppose drug legalization, but favor gun ownership based on that same principle, they're selectively choosing the libertarian argument based on which suits them. There's some nuance there that I'll get to, but there are some people who use the libertarian argument to its fullest extent when it comes to guns, yet abandon that argument when it comes to other things they want banned.
And I get it, a lot of the people arguing in favor of legalization also seem to be users. And of course, for many of them, their use of the libertarian argument is just as much a matter of convenience too. Certainly the pro-pot people who use the libertarian argument for pot, but are also anti-gun, might fall into that category. But, even if their reasoning is only that they want to use it without fear of being arrested, wanting to use it is a valid reason to favor legalization. That's not an objectively "wrong" motive for wanting it legalized, even if their argument is disingenuous.
Keep in mind, I'm only addressing arguments and attribution of motives here, not whether or not it should or shouldn't be legalized. So there are plenty of reasons why someone might want marijuana legalized that aren't objectively "wrong". And if you think those reasons are objectively "wrong", that's an ideological component, not a rational one. And if you think it should stay illegal for subjective reasons yourself, okay. Fine. But don't try to turn that into an objective argument.
So on the other side, the same is true. Lots of reasons to have the opinion that marijuana should stay illegal. It doesn't mean they hate freedom. It doesn't mean they are evil statists or meddling busybodies. Earlier I talked about misuse of the libertarian argument. And that's true enough for a lot of people who want to own guns but don't want you to have your dope. But, it's possible to have a nuanced view of the libertarian argument. That's also a spectrum of belief too, regardless of what the Wookies say.
The nuanced libertarian view would be that there's a legitimate, objective point where one might rationally believe that it's not possible for an individual to own/use something and still be responsible with it. So only the craziest gun owners would take the libertarian argument to its logical extreme and say everyone should be able to own nukes too, or everyone should be able to use any drug for any purpose and do anything while influenced by them.
Rational people recognize that it's probably not possible for individuals to own/use nukes responsibly. We don't want that kind of power in the hands of just anyone. Within that spectrum of belief it is at least a little subjective where people might want to draw that line, but it is objective that there is a line with some things. It does not make those people evil statists that they want a line at all. It makes them rational.
Okay, so if that makes any sense to you, maybe we can agree to dispense with the less genuine attribution of motives and start assuming we all have our reasons, maybe some of those reasons are more ideological, and that's fine, as long as we admit that much, and maybe your reasons aren't any more or less genuine than the other. I know this is an internet forum, and we like to argue at each other and try to pound our ideas into unwilling minds, but I mean, c'mon. At least give people some benefit of doubt and not just assume the motive you want to attribute to them.
Site Supporter
Members online
- jspy5
- possum_128
- mkgr22
- Mgderf
- DoggyDaddy
- BackFromDC
- Firehawk
- 63PGP
- BP84
- TheSpookyCat
- Peacekeeper3073
- Jrich1852
- draftyranger
- Joniki
- KittySlayer
- Nazgul
- Bassat
- NHT3
- gassprint1
- Vimace
- Floivanus
- fireball168
- Dean C.
- hhi7410
- BR8818
- morve80
- Huzrjim
- Tradesylver
- Altrex
- ComeJesuscome
- Dewidmt
- Kinkopet33
- johnx2
- actaeon277
- whatwehavehere
- Bethridge345
- XDdreams
- billyramair