If you support the second amendment, you must oppose drug prohibition

There is no sane world in which you can believe that we should trust the independent judgement of a gun-owner to use an item built for dealing death to consistently make a rational judgement with regard to their power and responsibility as a gun-owner while also believing that a person cannot make a rational judgement to use a mind-altering substance.

This is my thesis. I am pro-second, though I am also quite open to the idea that society should be able to intercede. If you have acted out in ways that rather unambiguously suggest you are given to violence, perhaps we ought not to put in your hands an item that makes the decision to end lives cheap, easy, and effective. But I do not understand how we would hold the right to deal death in a higher regard than the right to ingest what you will and control what influences your mind and body without the influence of government.

Traditionally in US politics, conservatives hold the view that we should outlaw all drugs but permit and encourage the possession of deadly weapons. I'm interested in hearing the justifications for this, or if ATS conservatives do not agree, the reasons for which they are willing to support a freedom-opposing draconian structure.

Which basic unalienable right do drugs support?

Guns support our basic unalienable right to defend our person and property which we also have a right to.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Which basic unalienable right do drugs support?

Guns support our basic unalienable right to defend our person and property which we also have a right to.

Your right to self-determination.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

While there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that specifically states that people have the right to do drugs, I've never had a problem with legalization.
The war on drugs is contrived and a failure.

It's an individual right. As someone that supports individual rights, I don't see a problem with it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Which basic unalienable right do drugs support?

Guns support our basic unalienable right to defend our person and property which we also have a right to.

One could say that drugs support our inalienable right to medicate ourselves as we see fit.

Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't protect drug possession.

These are also 2 completely different ethical issues. The second amendment keeps the government in check. What do recreational drugs do?

I don't believe we should be criminalizing drug users, but I would never argue that having and using drugs is a basic right that should be protected.

originally posted by: VivreLibre
Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't protect drug possession.

These are also 2 completely different ethical issues. The second amendment keeps the government in check. What do recreational drugs do?

I don't believe we should be criminalizing drug users, but I would never argue that having and using drugs is a basic right that should be protected.

Really?

Why would you accept that believing in ghostly apparition X in the sky versus ghostly apparition Y is fundamentally protected, but the right to eat and drink things that adjust how you experience reality deserves no such protection? Or are words written so long ago so pure and true that nothing therein outlined deserves honor while everything therein outlined is beyond question?

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

There is no sane world in which you can believe that we should trust the independent judgement of a gun-owner to use an item built for dealing death to consistently make a rational judgement with regard to their power and responsibility as a gun-owner while also believing that a person cannot make a rational judgement to use a mind-altering substance.

Well you just denied 85% population to have a gun under that idea.

The very fact is most Americans are on some type pharmaceuticals that do effect our thinking skill.

Perhaps we should end the mind altering drugs from the worlds larges pharmaceuticals corporations that has been tied to many mass shootings in America.

Guns are not the problem period. Mentally ill people are. Yet, I don't see our Representatives addressing this issue do you?

a reply to: VivreLibre

I guess "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." could be interpreted as recreational drugs are the means toward the pursuit of happiness?

It s an interesting comparison between drugs and guns.

I would not take the 2nd amendment for debate though.

Let's see the other side: The reasoning behind making drugs illegal is to protect people from the harm drugs can cause.

I am for a legalisation of all drugs. Everyone knows the risks and its everybodys individual decision what to put in their body. Drugs only harm the consumer, no one else.

Guns do harm people. In most cases other people than the owner of the gun.

If i d be a dictator, i would legalise all drugs and restrict guns.

Not ban them in general, but make it really restricted (background checks, waiting period, mandatory safey courses, no military grade weapons etc).

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

There is no sane world in which you can believe that we should trust the independent judgement of a gun-owner to use an item built for dealing death to consistently make a rational judgement with regard to their power and responsibility as a gun-owner while also believing that a person cannot make a rational judgement to use a mind-altering substance.

Well you just denied 85% population to have a gun under that idea.

The very fact is most Americans are on some type pharmaceuticals that do effect our thinking skill.

Perhaps we should end the mind altering drugs from the worlds larges pharmaceuticals corporations that has been tied to many mass shootings in America.

Guns are not the problem period. Mentally ill people are. Yet, I don't see our Representatives addressing this issue do you?

Not to get all meta on you, but I agree. Probably to a degree that would make you uncomfortable.

I think that humans are so bad at deciding when violence should be applied that we should consent to the heaviest of restrictions on the matter, for all. In many European countries, most police do not even carry a firearm. There are of course some who do, but for 99% of policing it is unnecessary and unhelpful. And despite the rhetoric on ATS, the truth is that statistically, people are generally better off this way.

I don't believe in confining choice or telling my fellow human what to do the vast majority of the time, but I do agree with checking guns at the door. And I mean this in a deeply philosophical sense. Socially, we need to check our guns at the door. When we know we are in a place of peace and meeting with one another, of collaboration, it is both pragmatic and a sign of respect for your fellow human to refuse to bring items whose job is to do harm into that space.

That said, none of this is really the point of the thread. The point of the thread is that it's ridiculous to dictate that humans should live in a dangerous world full of threats to their life while at the same insisting you can tell them what they put in their own bodies.

I would agree.

The war on drugs has been the single largest creator of violence in our history and we've been doing it for decades.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: VivreLibre
Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't protect drug possession.

These are also 2 completely different ethical issues. The second amendment keeps the government in check. What do recreational drugs do?

I don't believe we should be criminalizing drug users, but I would never argue that having and using drugs is a basic right that should be protected.

Really?

Why would you accept that believing in ghostly apparition X in the sky versus ghostly apparition Y is fundamentally protected, but the right to eat and drink things that adjust how you experience reality deserves no such protection? Or are words written so long ago so pure and true that nothing therein outlined deserves honor while everything therein outlined is beyond question?

I already stated I am for the decriminalization of drug users.

Regardless, your comparison is weak and your attempt to make people look hypocritical will not work.

You can make plenty of argument for the free use of substances which are currently considered illegal. However, you should think it through (there are plenty of resources to read on the topic) and not make ridiculous comparisons to the second amendment.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

In many European countries

Maybe you should move there then. Good luck.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
Which basic unalienable right do drugs support?

Guns support our basic unalienable right to defend our person and property which we also have a right to.

Your right to self-determination.

Which one is a more integral tool to maintaining your right to self-determine: recreational drugs or a firearm?

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: VivreLibre
Unfortunately, the constitution doesn't protect drug possession.

These are also 2 completely different ethical issues. The second amendment keeps the government in check. What do recreational drugs do?

I don't believe we should be criminalizing drug users, but I would never argue that having and using drugs is a basic right that should be protected.

Really?

Why would you accept that believing in ghostly apparition X in the sky versus ghostly apparition Y is fundamentally protected, but the right to eat and drink things that adjust how you experience reality deserves no such protection? Or are words written so long ago so pure and true that nothing therein outlined deserves honor while everything therein outlined is beyond question?

I already stated I am for the decriminalization of drug users.

Regardless, your comparison is weak and your attempt to make people look hypocritical will not work.

You can make plenty of argument for the free use of substances which are currently considered illegal. However, you should think it through (there are plenty of resources to read on the topic) and not make ridiculous comparisons to the second amendment.

Thanks for your thoughts. Clearly, I do not think them ridiculous. I think it's entirely valid to suggest that alongside one's right to do violence in defense of oneself, one has a right to actualize oneself in whatever way one sees fit. I am not at all arguing that anyone has a right to own anything. I am merely arguing that no one has a right to use a gun to tell me what I can put in my own body. And I am definitely arguing that this right is at least as sacred as my right to defend myself with deadly force.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim

originally posted by: ketsuko
Which basic unalienable right do drugs support?

Guns support our basic unalienable right to defend our person and property which we also have a right to.

Your right to self-determination.

Which one is a more integral tool to maintaining your right to self-determine: recreational drugs or a firearm?

Why must I choose?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JohnnyElohim

While there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that specifically states that people have the right to do drugs, I've never had a problem with legalization.
The war on drugs is contrived and a failure.

It's an individual right. As someone that supports individual rights, I don't see a problem with it.

That would fall under the 9th and 10th, or should. The Feds usurped it like so much else.

I don't see anything wrong with ending the war on drugs and legalizing marijuana. In fact, I think this would be a positive step. I live in Washington State where recreational marijuana was recently legalized, and it has given opportunities for new businesses to open up, has legitimized, regulated and taxed marijuana use and even generated revenue for the state. It is easier to regulate when it is in the open and it is nice to be able to go to a store instead of buying off the street.

You have to be 21 to buy pot or even enter a pot store, and they scan your ID. There are regulations on where the stores can be located, for example, not near schools. Cigarettes are more dangerous than pot, but they are still legal, as is alcohol.

I think you'd have an easier time with the 9th and 10th amendments. Those are intended to keep sovereign power to the People and the individual States, and limit the Federal government.

Fun fact: Ted Cruz, for all that he personally disapproves of drug use, concedes that Colorado/Washington/other states are perfectly within their rights to legalize marijuana due to the sovereign nature of the state political laboratories.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I'm trying to get you to understand why one has its own Amendment and the other does not.

The Revolution was not won with heroine, coc aine, and '___'. It took individually armed men to achieve it and the 2nd recognizes that need to be able to defend person and property against all comers including government.