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

[generalmeow]

We're probably all pro-gun here, and I going to take a leap and say that we all know guns can be dangerous. We could potentially use them to hurt ourselves, or hurt others, but we still want others to be able to own guns. It's their responsibility to be safe with them. If they hurt themselves or someone else, they must face the consequences. We don't need or want the government to ban guns to protect us, or others, from our guns.

So how is this different than drugs? If you want to do drugs, that's your choice and your responsibility. You can hurt yourself, or you can hurt others. So what? You can do the same thing with a gun. You can do the same thing with gasoline. You can do the same thing with anti-freeze, a screwdriver, or a hammer. Or alcohol.

A kid can get his hands on drugs and ruin his life, or he can get his hands on a gun and ruin his life. You teach them to not pick up the gun, and you trust them to do so, why can't you teach them to not pick up the drugs, and trust them to do so?

If anybody is pro-gun and anti-drug (which I assume is a lot of you), I'd be interested in hearing how you reconcile the two stances.

For the record, I never do drugs. But I'm in favor of every drug being legal, for the simple reason that I don't think the government should tell us what to do if we're not hurting anyone. If we hurt someone, then the government steps in.

[Roger Ronas]

Very well stated and my beliefs also.
There is a website you may enjoy. It is Law Enforcement against prohibition. It is made up of Judges, police officers, attorneys and the like.
WWW.LEAP.cc

Roger

[Fentonite]

-There is no constitutional amendment that specifically guarantees the right to keep and ingest drugs.
-Drug use will not protect my family, nor prevent government tyranny.

Having said that, I am typically Libertarian in my views, and believe the War on Drugs is a waste of resources and is a losing proposition. But drugs and guns are two different arguments, and are not analogous in my view.

Pretty good book by Sheriff Bill Masters, called Drug War Addiction.

[generalmeow]

-There is no constitutional amendment that specifically guarantees the right to keep and ingest drugs.
-Drug use will not protect my family, nor prevent government tyranny.

Having said that, I am typically Libertarian in my views, and believe the War on Drugs is a waste of resources and is a losing proposition. But drugs and guns are two different arguments, and are not analogous in my view.

The purpose of the constitution isn't to tell us what we can do. We can do anything.

Automobile use will not protect your family, nor prevent government tyranny. But you can still use your car, and you can hurt yourself and others with it. I trust you to do what's right with your car.

[Fentonite]

The purpose of the constitution isn't to tell us what we can do. We can do anything.

Automobile use will not protect your family, nor prevent government tyranny. But you can still use your car, and you can hurt yourself and others with it. I trust you to do what's right with your car.

You missed my point. Or more likely, I did a poor job trying to make it. I agree that the drug war is stupid, but I just can't get as passionate about drug rights as gun rights.

[generalmeow]

You missed my point. Or more likely, I did a poor job trying to make it. I agree that the drug war is stupid, but I just can't get as passionate about drug rights as gun rights.

I'm not really passionate about drug rights either. I was just thinking how there really isn't a difference between the reasons you're pro-gun, and the reasons you're pro- legalizing drugs. They're completely different things, but they both have the same exact arguments.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

If anybody is pro-gun and anti-drug (which I assume is a lot of you), I'd be interested in hearing how you reconcile the two stances.

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

[Zundfolge]

I could care less about drug legalization.

On the one hand I don't think making these drugs illegal does any good (and in come cases does make things worse) but I don't think that if we don't legalize everything its some sign that America has become some awful, oppressive, totalitarian police state.

So could care less whether these drugs are legal or illegal.

All I really care about is if they are going to remain illegal that the police are tightly constrained by the Constitution when it comes to enforcing these laws.

No-knock raids, asset forfeiture laws, roadblocks and checkpoints ... these things have no place in American law enforcement, I don't care how bad the drugs are.

If legalizing the drugs ends the police state BS, fine legalize ... if you can put the police back under the Constitution without legalizing, fine don't legalize.

[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.

[jhood001]

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.

I think there is a strong case around here for BOTH being capable of causing dependence and addiction!