Quote Originally Posted by generalmeow View Post
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.

Right, but my point is you set a single bar on a very blurred item. You addressed the extremes which I used specifically for that example, but didn't address any of the blurred drugs. Incidentally, uranium is, in fact, used medically.

The fact is, you can't have any weapon or even any firearm you want. Even though it may be extremely useful. Society has created tiers or protection and guardrails against that.
I'm not so sure why you think the schedules we have created for drugs is so much different and so much more unfair. You can argue that there are things that haven't been scheduled correctly or fairly, and there would be folks making the same analogy about various firearm related things, perhaps magazine capacity, perhaps rate of fire, perhaps sound attenuation.

Again, the answer isn't to just remove all guardrails and trust in people. $0.02 You got your pot. You fought for it (individually) and got it. That is appropriate. Just like we'll fight for magazine capacity. What drug do you want now? But we don't just throw out all regulations, especially on drugs.