This thread is inspired by another: view original post
so guns should be allowed but drugs shouldn't?
please someone, explain the logic behind this because they seem like basically the same arguments to me.
Note: 'drugs' means all drugs, not just weed.
EDIT: i am NOT saying drugs and guns are the same, but that the arguments people use to ban one can easily be used against the other.
[u]arguments for banning either guns or drugs:[/u]
they can be dangerous to inexperienced users
they can harm or kill you and others
[u]arguments for not banning guns or drugs:[/u]
using them is a fun activity and when used properly and safely pose little risk to the user (note: in the case of drugs 'used properly and safely' does not include getting addicted)
a person has a right to the freedom to own and/or use them so long as they are not putting others in any harm or otherwise infringing their rights.
why should we treat them differently?
-
the problem is that drugs, almost by definition, are addicting. The majority of drug users abuse drugs. However, the majority of gun users do not abuse their guns. Do you see 300 million homicides a year? I know I don't. Though I don't actually know the amount of drug users and abuse, I do know that the only reason a person would take them is to get high. And when a person is high, they are no longer in control of themselves. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they are no longer in control of their own body. That's why the majority of drugs are illegal and guns aren't.