How can you be pro-gun, but anti-drug?

[generalmeow]

I'm not THAT anti-drug, but...
I'd be interested in how you make such an analogy when only one can cause serious dependence and addiction. Only one can take control of you causing a "responsible person" to do very irresponsible things. One actually alters who you are. It isn't guns.
There are drugs that, simply put, no one but trained professionals can use responsibly. What firearm or beverage is that true of? There are some, and you can't have them (easily).

And where is the line between drug and poison? As a pharmacist, I assure you it is quite blurred. Should ricin and anthrax just be readily available? Use them if you want until you hurt someone else? Oh, but oops, I put all mine in the city water supply. Should weapons-grade uranium be available and unregulated? (NO, of course not, that's ridiculous!) OK, how about foxglove? Botox? Atropine? Hemlock? Warfarin?


This is [edit: one of many of] my problem with libertarianism in the extreme - their position on licensing and regulating. This whole AMA / FDA / CSA is a crock thing.
Are you kidding me? We do over-regulate. The answer isn't a complete absence of it. $0.02

I'll hopefully answer many of these questions by saying that if I wanted to, I could inject gasoline into my arm. I could inject motor oil. Anti-freeze. Dish soap. Why ban drugs, when I could hurt myself by using virtually anything? You could do more damage with a single match than an ounce of heroin.

Ricin, anthrax, and uranium aren't drugs. I concede that I should not be able to own them. There is a bar above which things are too dangerous for average people to own. But the bar is set way too low right now. And whatever the height of the bar, illicit drugs should be underneath it.