“A group of armed men burst into a bar early Saturday in the Mexican resort city of Acapulco and began shooting, leaving 10 men dead and four wounded,” laht.com reports. “At least 30 people have been murdered in Acapulco in less than a week, including three children under the age of 10. On Wednesday, a 4-year-old girl with a gunshot wound in the chest and her mother were found slain in the back of a vehicle. The Gulf, Beltran Leyva and Cartel Independiente de Acapulco drug mobs have been battling for control of that Pacific coast city.” Bottom line: smoking weed or snorting a bit of blow is not a victimless crime. But more than that, recreational drugs increase the odds that you’ll have to use your self-defense firearm—which is something you don’t want to do . . .

As the rabbi [constantly] reminds us, the best way to avoid a gunfight is to avoid stupid people doing stupid things. Most of us do just that. We walk by bars where tattooed men who know more about 10-21s than 401ks hang by a line of Harley Davidsons. We stay out of clubs where men with dead eyes and large diamonds surround themselves with women with bored expressions and surgical enhancements. So, where do hardened criminals and otherwise law-abiding, gun-owning people physically intersect? Drugs.

Sure, there’s a less-than-hardened perp between the average recreational drug user and the “real” bad guys. But that “friend” who brings a bag of weed or an envelope of coke has no real allegiance to their “mates.” If push comes to shove—if a drug dealer higher up on the food chain wants to steal firearms and/or cash from some middle-class homeowner—a low-level drug dealer will sell out their “friends” in a New York minute.

By the same token, if needs be, your connection will give-up your name to the cops without a moment’s hesitation. One drug bust later and your firearms will be the property of the local po-po, for God’s knows how long if not forever. The simple truth: you can’t win. Illegal drugs are violence magnets. To wit this from gainseville.com:

The apparent victim of a home invasion robbery where shots were fired initially denied knowing anything about the crime, according to police. The man late admitted he lived in the apartment where evidence of the crime was found.

Gainesville Police Department officers were dispatched to an apartment at 1037 NW 41st Ave. after neighbors said they heard shots fired around 12:10 a.m. Tuesday.

Lt. David Rowe said officers found the door had been kicked in and at least four shots fired inside the residence. Rowe said officers could also smell marijuana inside the apartment.

The resident, Kendall McAphee, 23, was found at a neighbor’s home. Rowe said McAphee initially denied even living at the home that had been broken into, then admitted he was the resident, but did not provide any information about who may have committed the crime or why he was apparently targeted.

I firmly believe that the vast majority of home invasions involve drugs, one way or another. To keep you and your family safe from your worst nightmare, to leave that self-defense firearm and your tactical abilities untested, walk away from the bong and just say no to the blow. If you still think that soft drugs are a harmless indulgence, it’s time to grow up.

Recommended For You

30 Responses to Self-Defense Tip: Don’t Smoke Dope or Snort Coke

  1. Quite simply, its only a `victimed` crime because the government forces you to support these people.

    You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot ingest.

    • Agreed, the violence is a product of prohibition. I’m pretty sure, however, that RF didn’t tell anyone what they can and cannot ingest.

    • Hear, hear. There was a lot of the very same kind of violence during Prohibition, all of it based on the illegal importation and sale of alcohol. A sensible legalization program of, at least, mary jane would go a long way to decreasing gang (and gun) related violence.

    • We’ve got a winner! The only reason consuming narcotics isn’t “victimless” at the moment is because of our government’s idiotic “War on Drugs”. And not supporting recreational drugs because they aren’t “victimless” is a bit of a Catch-22 due to that.

  2. I’m not telling you what to ingest. No judgement here. But I am saying that if you ingest certain substances, there are consequences for your safety and the safety of your family (if you have one).

  3. “But that “friend” who brings a bag of weed”

    People I know in California say this is no longer the case. It has become de facto legal there. So as long as you have a “headache”, enjoy all battle rifles as long as they are M1As, and don’t mind reloading after 10 shots, bong all you want.

  4. Bottom line: smoking weed or snorting a bit of blow is not a victimless crime.

    True, but only because it’s not a crime.

    . But more than that, recreational drugs increase the odds that you’ll have to use your self-defense firearm

    It’s prohibition not the drugs that increase those odds. It’s a vitally important difference. It is not possessing “high capacity magazines” in California or New Jersey that increase the odds of being imprisoned – it’s the prohibition of them.

    But that “friend” who brings a bag of weed or an envelope of coke has no real allegiance to their “mates.”

    Often true, often not true. How can you accurately judge a tremendously large number of people you have never even met?

    If push comes to shove—if a drug dealer higher up on the food chain wants to steal firearms and/or cash from some middle-class homeowner—a low-level drug dealer will sell out their “friends” in a New York minute.

    This is only true of dealer dealers. Most “drug dealers” are users who pay for their own prohibitively expensive exercise in property rights by assisting others with their own. There are often two, three, or more layers between the consumer and the gangsters. There’s fewer middlemen between the local cops/politicians and the gangsters.

    By the same token, if needs be, your connection will give-up your name to the cops without a moment’s hesitation.

    For the same reasons listed above – that is by no means true, especially for the “dealers” who never get more than an ounce of reefer.

    The simple truth: you can’t win. Illegal drugs are violence magnets.

    The number of elderly drug users I’ve met doesn’t seem to match your world view. Off the top of my head I can think of three people in their sixties, one was arrested once in the seventies for a pot pipe but the charges were dropped and the others were never arrested. I can also recall meeting two people in their eighties who’d been smoking reefer for many decades, i.e. as far back as the forties. They’d never been arrested. None of these people were ever subject to any violence. Anecdotal evidence? Sure, but how many millions of anecdotes does it take before there is a sizable body of evidence that should taken seriously?

    To keep you and your family safe from your worst nightmare, to leave that self-defense firearm and your tactical abilities untested, walk away from the bong and just say no to the blow.

    When one forfeits part of ones liberty to the tyrants then it is only a matter of time before the tyrants insist on the forfeiture on your remaining liberties, the rest of your property, and your life.

    If you still think that soft drugs are a harmless indulgence, it’s time to grow up.

    Any drug used in with safe practices is as safe as using any firearm with safe practices. Always possible something will go wrong but it’s highly unlikely. There most certainly is a fascinating and complex cost/benefit analysis though – for a party drug such as cocaine then it may be worth not doing it to avoid persecution – but for a medicinal drug such as marijuana it might not be worth giving up the safest most effective anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, anti-nausea, anti-inflammatory medication on the market.

  5. In Oregon, medical marijuana has made pot de-facto legal. Courts have even ruled that a medical marijuana card is not grounds for denying a concealed carry permit. However, the price of pot has not come down, since a lot of local black-market production is sold out of state. Consequently, there have been some home invasions of growers. I don’t know, but I doubt you could find a bag of Mexican weed here, although some of the cartels are growing in the National Forest.

    Prohibition of alcohol was associated with more than a little bit of violence. Consumption of alcohol today is associated with more than a little bit of violence.

    Ending the prohibition of illegal drugs would separate the problems of criminality associated with the production and sale from problems associated with the consumption of the drugs. With pot, there really aren’t a lot of problems associated with the consumption. Certainly it’s less harmful than alcohol (full disclosure, I do enjoy my local microbrew commie beer). Cocaine, meth, etc., not so user friendly.

    So, I’m with the Libertarians here. Legalize it!

    Sound advice, nonetheless.

    • Thinking on this some more – if medical marijuana is legal in your state (and we like States Rights, don’t we?), and you are engaged in the legal business of producing that product, are you any different, morally, from the owner of any other business that’s prone to get robbed? We don’t say it’s stupid and wrong to own a jewelery store. We say that the owner should take proper security measures, and arm himself. Same with liquor stores, etc.

      Just a thought.

  6. Lets step back a minute here. I have some libertarian leanings myself, and can sympathize with the legalization crowd. However, let us for a minute consider reality.

    Most drugs are not legal most places, and with the possible exception of marijuana, that will likely never change. Participating in an illegal market place means that you are breaking the law, no matter how much you may disagree with it, and associating with lawbreakers. These actions have implications for your personal safety, and perhaps your freedom, if convicted.

    I would not deny that there are many non-violent drug users, I know a few myself. To deny that violence is often connected to drugs is willful blindness, regardless of whom you blame for the source of that violence. I might even go so far to say that most drug users are of the “recreational and responsible” type and would never consider using violence in any form. Those millions of people purchasing drugs aggregate to billions of dollars every year. Those billions represent quite the prize for anyone who is able to control a portion of production or distribution of these substances. The thousands of people who are killed in that competition both in this country and in our neighbor to the south don’t care about what should or shouldn’t be legal. They are just as dead.

    • Most drugs are not legal most places, and with the possible exception of marijuana, that will likely never change.

      All things move towards their end. Prohibition is not legal in most if not all of America. Since it causes the problems it purportedly solves and causes many new problems it can not last forever.

      Participating in an illegal market place means that you are breaking the law, no matter how much you may disagree with it, and associating with lawbreakers.

      Oh no! Breaking the law? Oh no!!! Not that! How dare anyone ever disobey their cocaine-addicted politician overlords?

      Is it really that wrong to not obey an immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, ineffective, counterproductive “law”?

      • You are what sane people call a “libertine,” not a libertarian. A Libertarian might say “I should be able to do anything, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.” This person can still see past himself far enough to care about the well being of others. A Libertine says. “I can do anything I want, and you can’t tell me what to do, no matter what.” That is a horribly self centered and selfish system of belief. Since you seem to think it is correct to choose which laws to obey, where do you draw the line? Maybe widespread prostitution would be good for the country as well?

        Examine reality, please. Consider the moral state of a country that does not regulate drugs. Consider the state of a family of drug users, or a workplace full of them. Sound happy, productive, and safe?

        One last point, and this one is somewhat practical, which may offend you. If drugs are legalized, the government will regulate and tax them, probably to the point that there will still be a multi-billion dollar black market for them. The only result will be a government that has more money, and therefore more power to curtail your already endangered rights.

        • “Consider the state of a family of drug users, or a workplace full of them. Sound happy, productive, and safe?”

          They fell. Their fault. Their example serves as a warning to others.

          “The only result will be a government that has more money, and therefore more power to curtail your already endangered rights.”

          Perhaps it is time we took back what the 2nd Amendment really means and get ourselves some heavier weaponry.

        • Their children will more than likely end up on the public dole. What does your philosophy think about that? More drug use=more people on welfare, and not just because it is a crime. As for the second part of your statement, we are a long ways from that point.

        • “More drug use=more people on welfare”

          Sounds pretty damn similar to the anti’s rather silly refrain of “more guns –> more crime and more deaths.”

          We live in an age of information – sometimes good information wins out and sometimes it doesn’t. I trust some people are smart enough to be careful with drugs (as well as look up information) just as I trust people to be careful with firearms.

          But I also realize I cannot save everyone, because it’s pointless to try and pushing yourself too far makes you lose yourself in the process.

          I do trust people to be more generous with their money for welfare funding, but I expect public shame to stem the problem in the first place.

  7. End the war on drugs. Now. It will take a lot of heat off the 2nd amendment, among other good things. But they won’t. It’s too profitable for the government and the cartels and the banks to keep the prices inflated.

  8. RF’s point was a cautionary one, namely that somewhere in the supply chain of reefer or nose candy there are bad people with bad intentions. Can anyone deny the truth of that?

    My libertarian sensibilities say: eliminate the issue by legalizing pot NOW. Let growers grow it, let cigarette companies roll and distribute it, let liquor stores sell it and the government will regulate its purity and tax it. My conservative leanings say: don’t pick and choose the laws you want to obey. Don’t lie down with dogs. Until there’s some sense to this country’s insane drug laws, obey them while you work to change them.

    • Until there’s some sense to this country’s insane drug laws, obey them while you work to change them.

      Why would you obey an insane and senseless set of rules? Two reasons come to mind. You are insane and or senseless.

      My conservative leanings say: don’t pick and choose the laws you want to obey.

      Since the laws are in conflict, you have to choose which ones you want to obey.

      One of the neat things about America is that it’s a libertarian republic. State drug laws are invalidated by most if not all state constitutions, and federal drug laws are invalidated by the federal constitution.

      Are you going to obey the unconstitutional crimes that pose as laws, or are you going to obey the actual laws?

      • The best reason to obey the laws is that if you do, you’ll spend your evenings at home rather than at the Graybar Hotel. But heck, since I’m a (retired) lawyer, I think it would be okay to visit you in prison. I’ll bring some cookies and you can enthrall the COs and me with your views on the Constitution.

        • I don’t think I’ll be going away anytime soon (or ever), but I do appreciate the sentiment. If you wanted to you could visit prisoners and find those who agree with my views on the Constitution, I’ve read of a number of different groups and individuals from very diverse backgrounds reaching the same conclusion especially with regards to Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241. I’m not the only one who favors prosecuting prohibitionist government officials under that law.

        • I always found that suing the bastards worked much better than breaking the law and getting sent to the joint. I always loved bringing Sec. 1983 cases against our vaunted officials, and I really enjoyed collecting my attorney fees from them as well. The best thing about lawsuits, as opposed to civil disobedience, is that my clients got to stay home with their kids at night, and the “public servants” had to do the worrying.

  9. The only reason our country can continue to charge, convict and incarcerate people for substance use is because our government has banking buddies with the ability to print an endless supply of money to fund their madness. The ‘War on Drugs’ has resulted in more harm, abuse and death to the people of this country than any drug or firearm ever could.

    The WoD provides our government with another means of prohibiting gun ownership. Except for propaganda purposes, the government doesn’t give a shit if some meth head gets hold of an AR15 and shoots up a neighborhood. They only care about using these laws to keep guns out of the hands of otherwise honest, law-abiding citizens.

    Drug use does not automatically result in criminal, irresponsible or otherwise dangerous behavior. Infinitely greater damage is done by the prohibition of drugs rather than by the drug itself.

  10. Reply to above statement about drug use=more welfare

    I did not say that more guns = more crime. Statistics indicate otherwise. The numbers do not indicate otherwise when it comes to drug use and welfare and/or other government aid. Is public shame currently taking care our welfare problem? What will you do with the children of drug users who are neglected through no fault of their own?

    • Pretty sure there’s something about Protective Child Services being called in if neglect is detected.

  11. A couple of observations…

    First of all, a disclaimer. Believe it or not, I’ve never gotten high, and I’ve never been drunk. I’m about the biggest square (on those counts) that you’d ever meet. So I come to this discussion with an obvious bias.

    I’m more or less in the camp of “legalize and tax it into obscurity.” Not because I favor drug use (at all) but because it simply makes more sense for regulation, prosecution, and economics. If we’re gonna have a “War on Drugs,” it might as well pay for itself.

    Anytime the government declares a “War on…” I cringe. How’s that “War on Poverty,” “War on Childhood Obesity” and “War on Illiteracy” workin’ out for ya?

    If you’re gonna legalize drugs, then you’d best provide some mandatory sentences for drug use while driving. And shooting or conceal carrying, for that matter. I have a friend who’s recovering from a serious wreck caused by a drunk driver. It wasn’t his first offense. Think this isn’t gonna get worse, with drivers who are high? Think again.

    And lastly, since I am admittedly kind of square, I find it just a little unsettling that so many members of the TTAG Armed Intelligencia are pro-legalization. I realize the difference between “approving of” and “using” is a fairly wide chasm, but the thought of a bunch of otherwise-responsible gun owners possessing/using drugs is just an accident/arrest/tragedy waiting to happen.

    • We (the people whose hobby is firearms) are in the same boat as them (the people whose hobby is recreational drug use), namely that we have a hobby certain segments of society disapprove of, and they want to use the government to force us to conform to their ideas of what “appropriate behavior” is. Drug use carries risks. Firearms use carries risks. Some people aren’t willing to accept any of those risks. Some people are willing to accept the risks associated with one, but not the other.

      I don’t use illegal drugs, nor do I take prescription drugs for recreational purposes (in fact, I’ve been known to refuse to take some prescriptions, pain-killers chief amongst them). However, I don’t presume to tell others what they can and cannot put into their bodies. To do otherwise is authoritarianism, and it has no place in a free society. The Declaration of Independence says that we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness. If smoking weed makes you happy, then go for it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *