Gun rights activists are generally perceived as coming from the political right while marijuana reformers are typically thought of as belonging to the political left . Ironically, if they can get past their reflexive distrust of each other, the two groups would discover that their pursuit of civil liberties is quite similar. The violence associated with the black markets created by Prohibition of marijuana provides political cover and motivation to those seeking to permanently curtail our 2nd Amendment rights in the name of law and order. Gun owners should understand that much of the impulse to over-regulate and ban firearms would evaporate overnight--along with much of the crime--by joining forces with the anti-Prohibition forces to take away the lucrative black market for both drugs and guns by legalizing marijuana.
To begin with, right/left-wing activists should understand that the expansion of federal power to curtail their favored liberties--to keep and bear arms on one side and to consume whatever substance consenting adult (or their physicians) desire on the other--began at roughly the same time. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) was organized in response to the 1968 Gun Control Act. While its stated mission has been to support the nation's gun laws to prevent criminals and mentally incompetent people from acquiring firearms, the BATF has a history of what might kindly be termed "overzealousness." The completely avoidable carnage in Waco, TX and the recent revelations that the ATF has been one of the primary suppliers of weapons to Mexican drug cartels via ill-conceived operations that have resulted in mayhem and death, e.g. Fast and Furious, are among many examples of the BATF's dysfunctional approach to law enforcement.
The second movement enacted at the time that illustrates the view of Americans as children in need of federal supervision was the War on Drugs announced by Richard Nixon in 1971. Whatever inappropriate zest the BATF may be accused of pales in comparison to the victimization of our citizens by the War on Drugs; which is really a War on Drug Users, AKA Americans. The direct cost (51 billion annually) to our court and prison systems is well known. Less understood is the indirect cost in ruined lives, sundered families and the pervasive violence that surrounds the drug trade as it does any highly profitable black market.
"Combating crime" is a political cliche pandering politicians have invoked to control both guns and drugs for decades. But blaming either guns or drugs for violence is an intellectual cop-out. Neither per se causes violence. Competition for control of lucrative illegal markets for banned drugs makes violence an inevitable means to settle arguments since neither the courts nor the police enforce business transactions between gangsters. While this ongoing violence fuels misguided outcries to add more gun prohibitions on top of drug prohibition this secondary prohibition only creates another black market in guns; one that is exploited by the criminals themselves and leads to additional crime, e.g. burglaries in search of firearms.
Forget for the moment that over the last four decades we have squandered over a trillion dollars waging this unwinnable war . Forget that we shelled out $450 billion in federal corrections dollars or $190 billion to police our porous borders, arrest 37 million non-violent drug offenders in our country and pay for policing other countries. Don't even think about the tax dollars that flowed from State treasury coffers into this economic sinkhole. Why add that stress to a country teetering on bankruptcy?
Returning to the BATF, in addition to killing civilians in the U.S. via armed assaults (Waco) or in Mexico with gun-running operations (Fast and Furious), this agency also leads the charge in the expansion of federal powers in the War on Drugs via bureaucratic rule-setting: this month the ATF has announced -- without input from Congress or the public -- that anyone who has a state-issued medical marijuana card is no longer eligible to own a gun. The Drug Policy Alliance estimates that this action has instantly deprived 1,000,000 Americans -- yes, one million -- of their 2nd Amendment rights with the stroke of a pen. Using similar bureaucratic moves, the Department of Justice (which, not incidentally, runs the BATF) this month also announced attacks on the 1st Amendment by threatening to seize the assets of newspapers which run ads for state-licensed medical marijuana dispensaries.
The more of our increasingly scarce tax-funded resources we spend on attempting to prevent drugs (mainly marijuana) from coming into the country, the more the price goes up, the greater the profits for criminals, the higher the pressure becomes to give up more of our civil liberties while pouring more money into what we should now recognize to be a bottomless pit. Few politicians have the guts to change paradigms, but America's gun owners are known for their prowess and intellectual honesty when it comes to preserving our firearm freedoms.
As President of the Independent Firearm Owners Association (IFOA), I believe the time has come for activists across the political spectrum to join forces with marijuana reform campaigns in order to protect our civil liberties. The actions of the Obama administration require that gun activists protect our own 2nd Amendment liberties by helping others protect their rights to be treated like adults, thereby decreasing violence in the country and lessening calls for gun control.
By ending drug prohibition we have a merging of the right and left down the pro-freedom, independent center of the road. What a powerful alliance these two movements could become. Gun rights activists could negate the emotional rhetoric for gun control while marijuana reformers would find powerful political and grass roots support to end the insanity of marijuana prohibition. Our nation is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy; let's stop digging our financial grave any deeper, let's learn from our own history for a change: end marijuana prohibition; stop wasting 100's of billions of dollars every year in policing, prosecuting, and incarcerating our citizens; stop funding drug gangs, ruining civil society and corrupting our law enforcement agencies on both sides of the southern border. This is a clear case where government doing less will mean doing more to lower crime, save money and help protect and preserve our civil liberties.
What do you think? I'd like to know.
Margie Omero: Views Might Be Changing Toward Gun Laws Not Actually Up for Debate. So What?
That was soon overshadowed by alcohol prohibition. Alcohol prohibition produced a huge rise in homicides. Machine guns in the streets during alcohol prohibition led to the first Federal gun control law. Alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933 and the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934.
Again, it was generally agreed that the Federal Government had no power to prohibit machine guns but there was no limit on what the Feds can do with taxes. So they followed the idea established in the Harrison Act, and placed a “tax” on those guns. If you don’t pay the tax and get a license, you can’t have the gun. And, by the way, they may make it effectively impossible to pay the tax.
Therefore, both drug and gun offenses were really “tax violations”.
Since then, the two issues have worked to reinforce each other in the scary media campaign. When was going on when they called for the 1994 assault weapons ban? There was a major crack epidemic and Miami Vice was on TV every week showing drug dealers shooting up the city.
The link between drug prohibition and calls for gun control starts back in 1914, when the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act was passed. Prior to 1906, all drugs were completely legal, with no restrictions at all. Many medicines were 50 percent morphine. Heroin was in baby colic remedies. Cocaine was in everything from toothache drops to soda pop to tobacco cheroots. There were no age limits, so kids could go into a drug store and buy heroin, cocaine, and other drugs. There were no labeling laws so people didn’t even know what they were taking. Even the Pope was in ads for cocaine wine.
Despite this, drugs were not considered a major problem in society. Addiction rates weren’t much different than they are today, and addicts were not usually criminals. There were no drug gangs and drug-related crime was all but unknown. Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906, to require labeling, purity, and truth in advertising and the problems began to steadily decline.
The Harrison Act was passed as a ‘’tax act.” The reason was that, at the time, everyone agreed that the Federal Government had no constitutional power to prohibit drugs, but the Constitution allows the Feds to tax anything they want, in any amount they want. So they placed a tax on drugs that was so high that no one would ever pay it. Then they arrested people for “tax violations”, not drug offenses.
The selling of gun control, to control crime, is really a red herring. The real reason is to disarm the citizens of this country as a means to exert greater government control over them and their lives, leaving them powerless. The Founders knew, because they understood human nature, that the very government they established, could one day become tyrannical. Americans, as a last resort, had a duty to depose that government, by force of arms, and reinstate the Constitution.
Thank you for mentioning Fast and Furious, information about which is hard to find on left leaning websites. The Obama administration has become the biggest supplier of "assault weapons" to the Mexican drug cartels, not SW gun dealers. Those dealers should be happy F&F was disclosed, because, I would wager that DOJ was going to double cross them and indict them for the straw purchases, ATF authorized.
Fast and Furious, was a deliberate attempt, to fabricate evidence, to prove the lie that 90% of the cartels weapons, came from the US. The operation was a criminal enterprise, by our own government, and a deliberate attempt to subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Those who authorized this operation, which lead to the deaths of two federal agents, should be indicted, tried, and put in jail.
So you think that we should not take any steps to reduce their income by billions? It seems to me that taking away tens of billions from them would reduce their power quite a bit. You know, same thing that happened after alcohol prohibition ended.
Even if MJ was legalized, and the cartel profits took a hit, they would make up those monies elsewhere, and that would still require enforcement by the gun, to control cartel members, and turf that could be lost to competing cartels.
One regulatory option that we often overlook in America (for drugs) is going one step short of "legalization." Everyone says Holland legalized marijuana, but they didn't really "legalize" it -- they kept it illegal but then adopted an official policy of non-enforcement within parameters. Create a mechanism for legally distributing drugs and exempt people from drug laws if they buy their drugs there and take them home. Otherwise drugs are still illegal. That way there is still the "social shame" aspect of drug prohibition -- its only redeeming attribute -- but the trafficking risk is undercut.
Here is the problem, in a nutshell, with only three possible solutions:
The marijuana trade is about as big as the beer business - about 100 billion per year. It is obvious that mj is not going to go away any time soon. Therefore, someone will control that trade, produce all the drugs, make all the rules for production and sale, and get all the profits.
The choices are:
1) Government with proper regulations and taxes to address social problems.
2) Private business, with proper regulations and taxes to address social problems.
3) Organized crime, with no regulations or taxes to address social problems.
Which do you think makes the most sense? Which makes the most sense for comparable drugs, such as beer?
Even with no laws at all, drugs were not considered a major problem. The percentage of addicts was about the same as it is today, but they did not commit crimes to support their habits. There were no drug gangs.
The drug gangs did not start until 1914, with the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. Within six months of the passage, medical societies across the nation were calling it a medical, moral, social and criminal disaster. You can read an excellent history of the subject at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
It's called "freedom".
http://tinyurl.com/4k346he
I would not have put it the way you have, but gun groups do need to get away from drug law enforcement business.
http://www.gunpoliticsny.com/?p=3653
Keep up the good work you do with NYSRPA!
Richard
I agree that gun advocacy groups should stay away from the marijuana issue . . . just like I think gun advocacy groups should stay away from the REP vs. DEM issue, and pretty much any other issue other than "gun rights."
But -- I do think Mr. Feldman makes a point that has a certain resonance with a segment of the population that might not otherwise be that supportive of RKBA. It's a point that should be made, just not by NRA.