2010:warmest year ever since records began

[Betruger]

I'm pretty much on the fence. But entertaining your arguments fails to overcome what, to me, is totally wrong with the crux of your POV: personal liberty. If someone ruins his life and relatives' by drug use, he's responsible. He pays.

TallDave's argument isn't sophistry; and how do you know he deliberately argued it to deceive? Guns are expressively made to kill and maim - that same state you'd expressively avoid at all costs. Yet they're legal under particular guidelines. Why couldn't drugs be legal in similar comprehensive terms?

There's something fundamentally very stinky about the pro drug prohibition pov.

[Diogenes]

I'm pretty much on the fence. But entertaining your arguments fails to overcome what, to me, is totally wrong with the crux of your POV: personal liberty. If someone ruins his life and relatives' by drug use, he's responsible. He pays.

If someone ruins his life by any overt action, it is the same. Suicide and cutting off body parts fit into that category.

Apparently you dismiss my argument that a parent has an obligation to pay for the feeding and upkeep of his child.


If instead, you think a parent DOES have an obligation to pay for the feeding and upkeep of his child, then how do you square that notion with the parent having the right to use crack or kill themselves?

As a philosophical question, You are going to have to come down on one side or the other. Either everyman is an island, or none of them are.

TallDave's argument isn't sophistry; and how do you know he deliberately argued it to deceive?

I read what Talldave writes. The argument is well below his normal quality of thought.

Guns are expressively made to kill and maim - that same state you'd expressively avoid at all costs.

They also serve as a deterrence. Often just the knowledge that one is armed is enough to provide a larger measure of safety, and in this regard their mere possession is useful, whether they be actually fired or not.

Yet they're legal under particular guidelines. Why couldn't drugs be legal in similar comprehensive terms?

I pondered a notion regarding this earlier. Not sure it's an answer, but it appears to address most of the issues from both sides.

It seems fairly consistent with the notion that people should be able to exercise rights until they abuse them. Driving a car is fine. Running into people is not.

There's something fundamentally very stinky about the pro drug prohibition pov.

What about the pro "rockets in Palestine" prohibition?

Are you against the concept of prohibition in general, or just this group of dangerous substances specifically?

[Betruger]

If someone ruins his life by any overt action, it is the same. Suicide and cutting off body parts fit into that category.

It's not the same. This is just semantics unless we have a clearly defined premise for this little branch in the overall debate.

Apparently you dismiss my argument that a parent has an obligation to pay for the feeding and upkeep of his child.

No. The parent would have that obligation till the child gets to adult age, for whatever the exact purpose is.

If instead, you think a parent DOES have an obligation to pay for the feeding and upkeep of his child, then how do you square that notion with the parent having the right to use crack or kill themselves?

I don't see novelty specific to drugs here. Same as in any other circumstances leading to that end-state.

As a philosophical question, You are going to have to come down on one side or the other. Either everyman is an island, or none of them are.

Last part's preaching to the choir. First part I'm not sure it's such a simple dichotomy. What if one specific drug formula actually does activate some switch that gets people going berserk, or if there's a similar side-effect that only happens in the long-term where the defensible use of self-medication or recreation no longer applies? What if that only happens for some people (genomes) and not others? We have a complex picture where it's not just one-size-fits all ethics, as with e.g. video games and epileptics.
I don't think the biochemical.... territory where drug use resides can be resumed to such a simple dichotomy.

They also serve as a deterrence. Often just the knowledge that one is armed is enough to provide a larger measure of safety, and in this regard their mere possession is useful, whether they be actually fired or not.

Deterrence by virtue of being tools of killing and maiming.

I pondered a notion regarding this earlier. Not sure it's an answer, but it appears to address most of the issues from both sides.

It seems fairly consistent with the notion that people should be able to exercise rights until they abuse them. Driving a car is fine. Running into people is not.

I reckon MSimon TallDave and others would agree once you get down to the logistics of legalization.

What about the pro "rockets in Palestine" prohibition?

Again rockets are not nearly in that sphere of "recreational" things. Those rockets are made to kill and maim, and not just the user on top of that.

Are you against the concept of prohibition in general, or just this group of dangerous substances specifically?

I'm against anything that makes people more cookie-cutter copies than individuals, against what directly or indirectly diminishes more rugged individuality, anything that stifles instead of spurs on the richness of ideas in populations (esp the one I'm in), against anything that unnecessarily/unfairly stifles personal liberty, and consequently I'm against tentacular and/or wasteful government as well as an ambient culture that allows or even tolerates it.

[Diogenes]

If someone ruins his life by any overt action, it is the same. Suicide and cutting off body parts fit into that category.

It's not the same. This is just semantics unless we have a clearly defined premise for this little branch in the overall debate.

How is it not the same? If a person owns their body, why can they not chop off body parts or kill it? I can certainly chop off parts of anything I own.

Apparently you dismiss my argument that a parent has an obligation to pay for the feeding and upkeep of his child.

No. The parent would have that obligation till the child gets to adult age, for whatever the exact purpose is.

So you are arguing for limiting the right to use debilitating drugs to only those people who don't have children or other dependents?

Is this not still a limitation on a right?

If instead, you think a parent DOES have an obligation to pay for the feeding and upkeep of his child, then how do you square that notion with the parent having the right to use crack or kill themselves?

I don't see novelty specific to drugs here. Same as in any other circumstances leading to that end-state.

I don't either. However, the use of drugs is widely believed to fall into this category.

As a philosophical question, You are going to have to come down on one side or the other. Either everyman is an island, or none of them are.

Last part's preaching to the choir. First part I'm not sure it's such a simple dichotomy. What if one specific drug formula actually does activate some switch that gets people going berserk, or if there's a similar side-effect that only happens in the long-term where the defensible use of self-medication or recreation no longer applies? What if that only happens for some people (genomes) and not others? We have a complex picture where it's not just one-size-fits all ethics, as with e.g. video games and epileptics.
I don't think the biochemical.... territory where drug use resides can be resumed to such a simple dichotomy.

It is obvious that there are distinctions of result based on genetics with not just narcotics, but a whole host of other issues. The reason that that is irrelevant to the discussion is that we don't make laws on such basis.

There are some people who can safely drive over the speed limit and not cause an accident. Some people are perfectly capable of driving a car with a blood/alcohol ratio above the legal limit. We don't make special laws for them, we make laws that fit the majority, and the exceptional must abide by them.

MSimon mentions that only ten percent of the people who tried heroine became addicted. (suspiciously low number imo) What is the threshold percentage of the population that must adversely be affected before we conclude that something is bad, and must be prohibited? Would we allow a kill rate of a vaccine as high as 1% ?

They also serve as a deterrence. Often just the knowledge that one is armed is enough to provide a larger measure of safety, and in this regard their mere possession is useful, whether they be actually fired or not.

Deterrence by virtue of being tools of killing and maiming.

Yes. That's why people will avoid confronting someone who is known to have such tools. If you think it is bad that some people occasionally need killing, then you have an argument with human nature.

I pondered a notion regarding this earlier. Not sure it's an answer, but it appears to address most of the issues from both sides.

It seems fairly consistent with the notion that people should be able to exercise rights until they abuse them. Driving a car is fine. Running into people is not.

I reckon MSimon TallDave and others would agree once you get down to the logistics of legalization.

There are some people who worship at the altar of "nobody is going to tell me what to do" to such an extent that the notion anyone should have any say on any behavior that they contemplate is anathema to them. But who knows? I can tell you Skipjack HATED the idea.

What about the pro "rockets in Palestine" prohibition?

Again rockets are not nearly in that sphere of "recreational" things. Those rockets are made to kill and maim, and not just the user on top of that.

As I mentioned earlier, some people's ideas concerning recreation are too tame!

My point is, are you of the opinion that ANY sort of prohibition is pointless, (which seems to be MSimon's contention) or are there some things worth prohibiting, such as rockets?

Are you against the concept of prohibition in general, or just this group of dangerous substances specifically?

I'm against anything that makes people more cookie-cutter copies than individuals, against what directly or indirectly diminishes more rugged individuality, anything that stifles instead of spurs on the richness of ideas in populations (esp the one I'm in), against anything that unnecessarily/unfairly stifles personal liberty, and consequently I'm against tentacular and/or wasteful government.

That's pretty ambiguous. I'm for freedom! YAAH! I'm against Tyranny! BOO!

As I mentioned earlier, freedom must have limits to exist. Only a King is truly free, for he can do anything he wants to do, (within his own kingdom) while the rest of the people have to respect each other's rights.

The boundaries between citizens must exist, or there can only be domination and submission. The state is tasked with enforcing the boundaries when the citizens are too weak to do it themselves.

[TallDave]

No it is not. That is sophistry. A Gun has a legitimate purpose, and is not subject to misuse just because someone owns it. It CAN be misused, but that is not inherent in it's nature. I would expect better of you than to try such a fallacy riddled argument.

The fallacy is in the phrase "legitimate purpose."

Of course drug use is a legitimate purpose; people derive utility from using drugs from coffee to alcohol to marijuana to heroin, just as they do from other forms of entertainment like movies and video games. That's why they pay for them.

Do any of those things actually accomplish much of anything practical? No. Can any of them cause harm, if used to excess? Yes. Should the gov't go around locking people up for using any of them? No.

By contrast, a handgun's intended purpose is to cause harm to other people. Now, in some cases that harm may be justified, but if you think drugs should be illegal because they sometimes harm people then to be intellectually consistent you must also believe guns should be illegal.

This is precisely the intellectual inconsistency that pushed me from movement conservative to libertarian. You either believe in freedom, or you want the State to enforce YOUR morality on people engaged in consensual transactions, which makes you little better than the nanny-statists.

[TallDave]

I can take you to any jail or prison and show you a lot of people prevented from buying and using drugs,

Actually, you can get drugs in prison too; the market always finds a way to meet demand. But even ignoring that, short of locking everyone up you aren't making much of a dent, you're just making more profits for the smarter dealers that don't get caught. In any high school in the country any kid can find 3 drugs in ten minutes. In a free society like ours, it's not practical to ban any substance that a significant minority want to possess.

It certainly puts a dent in it. Contrast tobacco and crack. Illegal Crack usage is inconsequential when compared to Legal tobacco or alcohol usage.

No, that's because most people don't want to use crack. It has little to do with the law, as anyone who wants crack can go and get it.

You are making a good case for wiping out the drug dealers,

You can't. You might as well try to "wipe out" everyone selling food. People want food, people want drugs.

How can peoples lives be ruined more than DEAD?

Only a very small percentage of drug users die from them, and most of those are because the black market system you've so compassionately forced on them is full of bad, deadly products that no free market would tolerate. The number of people whose lives are ruined by drug laws (including those killed in the crossfire between drug gangs) is much, much higher.

[Betruger]

1) Thought you meant something else.
2) Thought you were getting at the parent being responsible for kid usage while kid was in arbitrary age that's considered unable to make its own decisions.
3) Forget whether it's widely or narrowly believed. What matters is whether it makes sense or not, not demographic approval as you said. The parent is adult and responsible for what it does. Kill or otherwise abuse the child and it must pay.
4) I don't care what the law says, only what makes sense to me, as far as you and I arguing things. Gattaca might've been a bleak vision, but I don't know if it's accurate. In it you have a clear demonstration that willpower can overcome supposed genetic predispositions. So the genetic predisposition estimates in that world of Gattaca are wrong - the legislators/specialists consulting on the legislators screwed up and ended up with a dramatically unfair system.

Laws aren't supposed to be unfair, yet forbidding someone to drive @ some B/A ratio that's not a problem for him is the status quo; a technically unfair status quo. Which I reckon is only due to the technical unfeasibility to accurately regulate everything involved for the true goal of having people on the road only impaired to a specific (quantified) degree, on a case by case basis at a national level (hundreds of millions of people). The real thing that's attempted to be regulated, the real target, is that degree of impairment. Not the brand of beer or B/A ratio.

We use this convention of B/A as an interim solution, and that's fine with me assuming that's what's most feasible. In short, no, I don't think that less comprehensive laws, where more comprehensive laws would be possible, are reasonable.
That said: The devil is in the details and the above is just for argument's sake. My POV grosso modo.

What is the threshold percentage of the population that must adversely be affected before we conclude that something is bad, and must be prohibited? Would we allow a kill rate of a vaccine as high as 1% ?

Not answering that right now, haven't thought about it and don't have time to.

5) Again mistaking my POV. I don't think it's bad that some people occasionally need killing, and in fact that's not how I see it either. My understanding of human nature doesn't agree with your drug prohibition policy. What you said doesn't refute what I said in previous post WRT guns/drugs equivalence as far as preventive prohibition goes.

7) That doesn't make sense and doesn't sound like you understood what I said. I'm saying rockets and drugs are apples and oranges. Will answer later.

8. It's not ambiguous, it's my motivations. I thought the link between them and letting people take responsibility for their own actions (e.g. inform selves on drugs, choose to use or not use) was clear but I guess not.

As I mentioned earlier, freedom must have limits to exist. Only a King is truly free, for he can do anything he wants to do, (within his own kingdom) while the rest of the people have to respect each other's rights.

I don't see how that precisely follows the exact points of contention here. Guns do more to infringe on others' rights, yet it sounds like you argue for less prohibitive regulation of them than of drugs.

The state is tasked with enforcing the boundaries when the citizens are too weak to do it themselves.

Boundaries between someone and himself from using drugs? What?

[TallDave]

The state is tasked with enforcing the boundaries when the citizens are too weak to do it themselves.

Boundaries between someone and himself from using drugs? What?

I know, right? I mean, it's one thing if someone is telling you cocaine is harmless (can you imagine the warnings all over the packaging in a regulated free market?). But if you know the danger and you want to do it anyway, I really don't need my hard-earned tax dollars being spent to try to stop you -- and I don't have that right anyway, and trying doesn't work.

We didn't end Prohibition because everyone suddenly realized alcohol didn't destroy people and families. It does, but a free society means letting other people do things you think they shouldn't.

[WizWom]

the issue is whether it is our RIGHT to do whatever we want to our body, REGARDLESS of the harm it does to us.

I hope you're willing to defend that notion, because I want to ask you if mental patients should be allowed to do what they want?

I also want to know if you are okay with a parent spending his time getting high on dope instead of working to feed his child?

If your answer to both questions is "Yes", then congratulations, your philosophy is consistent, but your sanity is suspect.

How about a real answer, not a doge or attempted finesse?

Mental patients, as long as they don't harm other SHOULD get to do whatever they like - even if they harm themselves. Society makes a grave error trying to keep people from harming themselves.

The parent who neglects their children should have the children taken away - not as a punishment for doing drugs, but for the neglect. It is not the society's problem to judge WHY the neglect occurred, but to ameliorate the effects on the children, who deserve some chance to grow into useful people. But if the drug user can take care of their child - as in feed, clothe, provide shelter and instruction - then there is no reason to remove the child from the home, even if the parent spends a couple hours a night completely wacked out on heroin.

It is not insane.. it is rational and proper. A person has the right to their own person, even to destruction.

[Diogenes]

No it is not. That is sophistry. A Gun has a legitimate purpose, and is not subject to misuse just because someone owns it. It CAN be misused, but that is not inherent in it's nature. I would expect better of you than to try such a fallacy riddled argument.

The fallacy is in the phrase "legitimate purpose."

Of course drug use is a legitimate purpose; people derive utility from using drugs from coffee to alcohol to marijuana to heroin, just as they do from other forms of entertainment like movies and video games. That's why they pay for them.

Do any of those things actually accomplish much of anything practical? No. Can any of them cause harm, if used to excess? Yes. Should the gov't go around locking people up for using any of them? No.

By contrast, a handgun's intended purpose is to cause harm to other people. Now, in some cases that harm may be justified, but if you think drugs should be illegal because they sometimes harm people then to be intellectually consistent you must also believe guns should be illegal.

Only at the level of a child's understanding, would the harm of the guilty be equated with the harm of the innocent.

I am shocked that you regard the right of arms used to defend oneself from those who would harm you first, as on the same footing as drugs which are not only unnecessary for life, indeed inimical, but have consequential wreckage for not only the user, but everyone around them as well.

This is precisely the intellectual inconsistency that pushed me from movement conservative to libertarian. You either believe in freedom, or you want the State to enforce YOUR morality on people engaged in consensual transactions, which makes you little better than the nanny-statists.

It is too much to hope that anyone bitten by the libertarian bug will ever comprehend that ALL laws are legislated morality. The question is never "IF", but "Whose?"

Why do people persist in thinking that there is a boundary between the law and morality? The law is codified right and wrong, aka morality. It's just the "Official" morality.

So fine, let's explore this "Moralityless" law concept of which libertarians are so fond.

Do people have a right to practice racial discrimination? Obviously if individual rights are triumphant, an individual has the right to associate with whom they choose, hire whom they choose, and rent to whom they choose. To suggest otherwise is to IMPOSE MORALITY on them.

You complain of inconsistency in conservative thought, is there inconsistency in libertarian thought?

Racial prejudice in hiring and renting, a personal right? or imposed morality?

[TallDave]

Only at the level of a child's understanding, would the harm of the guilty be equated with the harm of the innocent.

Poorly reasoned. Guns harm the innocent and guilty alike. Drugs harm no one but those who harm themselves.

I am shocked that you regard the right of arms used to defend oneself from those who would harm you first, as on the same footing as drugs which are not only unnecessary for life, indeed inimical, but have consequential wreckage for not only the user, but everyone around them as well.

Video games, coffee, and beer are also "unnecessary for life" and can create "consequential wreckage" for addicts. Guns can harm everyone around you too.

You're tying yourself in logical knots here trying to reconcile these things. Why not just acknowledge the simple truth that personal responsiblity is the question in both cases?

[TallDave]

Do people have a right to practice racial discrimination?

Yes, of course they do, just as they have the right to shout racial epithets at races they don't like, or to refuse to rent to people whose zodiac sign is Libra. They shouldn't do those things, but like many things they shouldn't do, they do have the right to, and we do NOT have the right to forcibly stop them.

Rand Paul got in some hot water with the identity politics crowd over this notion, but he was absolutely correct. You cannot create thoughtcrimes in a free society, no matter how well justified they may seem. Bad ideas must die in a free marketplace, not beneath a gov't jackboot.

[Diogenes]

I can take you to any jail or prison and show you a lot of people prevented from buying and using drugs,

Actually, you can get drugs in prison too; the market always finds a way to meet demand.

You truncated my quote where I said " at least to the degree they otherwise would. " Truncated qualifying quotes is not something I would have expected from you. Obviously the quantity and quality are normally not to the same degree as they can obtain on the street, which is my point. You CAN interdict and drive down supply. It isn't 100% successful, but it is partially successful.

But even ignoring that, short of locking everyone up you aren't making much of a dent, you're just making more profits for the smarter dealers that don't get caught. In any high school in the country any kid can find 3 drugs in ten minutes. In a free society like ours, it's not practical to ban any substance that a significant minority want to possess.

The theme of your statement is that because we can't stop it all, we shouldn't even try. All we are doing is driving up prices. This is an argument against all forms of interdiction, not just drugs.

Are you seriously willing to argue that Israel shouldn't try to interdict rockets getting into Palestine?


I want a statement of principle from you regarding interdiction. Are you saying that Interdiction of dangerous substances is always wrong? (the only thing consistent with your above statement) Please try to eat this cake and have it too!

It certainly puts a dent in it. Contrast tobacco and crack. Illegal Crack usage is inconsequential when compared to Legal tobacco or alcohol usage.

No, that's because most people don't want to use crack. It has little to do with the law, as anyone who wants crack can go and get it.

Give it several hundred years of legality and the market would be bigger than cigarettes except for one thing. Because it's effects are so severe, and occur in such a short time, it would only take long enough for the crack population to get up to some level before the nation reacted in horror to what happened, turned against it and violently suppressed it.

You are making a good case for wiping out the drug dealers,

You can't. You might as well try to "wipe out" everyone selling food. People want food, people want drugs.

Yeah, I can see how food and drugs are the same thing. Are you kidding me? Seriously? You say such a thing?

How can peoples lives be ruined more than DEAD?

Only a very small percentage of drug users die from them, and most of those are because the black market system you've so compassionately forced on them is full of bad, deadly products that no free market would tolerate. The number of people whose lives are ruined by drug laws (including those killed in the crossfire between drug gangs) is much, much higher.

I think I hear the twilight zone theme song.

I am suspecting that you have no real experience dealing with serious drug users. I wish you could see your theories in practice. And you guys think people like me are trying to do social engineering.

Here's a clue from Phillip K Dick, Sci-Fi Author, from his book "A Scanner Darkly."

Dedication
Here is the list, to whom I dedicate my love:

To Gaylene deceased

To Ray deceased

To Francy permanent psychosis

To Kathy permanent brain damage

To Jim deceased

To Val massive permanent brain damage

To Nancy permanent psychosis

To Joanne permanent brain damage

To Maren deceased

To Nick deceased

To Terry deceased

To Dennis deceased

To Phil permanent pancreatic damage

To Sue permanent vascular damage

To Jerri permanent psychosis and vascular damage

... and so forth.


http://www.librarything.com/work/16566

[Diogenes]

the issue is whether it is our RIGHT to do whatever we want to our body, REGARDLESS of the harm it does to us.

I hope you're willing to defend that notion, because I want to ask you if mental patients should be allowed to do what they want?

I also want to know if you are okay with a parent spending his time getting high on dope instead of working to feed his child?

If your answer to both questions is "Yes", then congratulations, your philosophy is consistent, but your sanity is suspect.

How about a real answer, not a doge or attempted finesse?

Mental patients, as long as they don't harm other SHOULD get to do whatever they like - even if they harm themselves. Society makes a grave error trying to keep people from harming themselves.

I have a friend who stopped an autistic kid from running out into a major street. The kid was 13 years old, wearing a filthy diaper that was half hanging off his ass, with fecal material running down his leg. He had escaped from his mothers house because her brother was supposed to be watching him, but the brother wanted some weed, so he took off and left the kid in the house by himself.

Now I have given you a real world example, with real people. (The brother is currently in prison under the "Three strikes you're out! rule. None of his convictions were related to drugs.)

So, should the autistic kid have gotten to do what he wanted? Obviously he would have damaged the front of someone's car had he been allowed to do so.

The parent who neglects their children should have the children taken away - not as a punishment for doing drugs, but for the neglect.

And why should the taxpayers pay to support other people's children, instead of kicking aforementioned dopers A$$? The dopers are harming ME! Joe Taxpayer!

It is not the society's problem to judge WHY the neglect occurred, but to ameliorate the effects on the children, who deserve some chance to grow into useful people. But if the drug user can take care of their child - as in feed, clothe, provide shelter and instruction - then there is no reason to remove the child from the home, even if the parent spends a couple hours a night completely wacked out on heroin.

Ha ha ha ha ha.... I'm sorry, that's the only thing I can think of which fits as a response. How many heroine addicts do you know who act responsibly?

It is not insane.. it is rational and proper. A person has the right to their own person, even to destruction.

And I have the right to keep them the h3ll away from me, because they constitute a threat that I do not wish to put up with. Apparently society agrees, hence laws banning these substances.

I have a dear friend (the aforementioned uncle of the aforementioned bum who does nothing but smoke weed in Denver Colorado.) who told me about his experience with LSD. He and a friend (whom I also used to know) were sitting in his room eating potato chips when they decided to try it. All of a sudden, my friend believed he was eating glass, and became terrified he was cutting his mouth open. His friend screamed, jumped up, and then dived out the window. He later said a robot firing darts from it's mouth came out of the closet.

He said it was a bad trip, and he didn't want to try it again. Imagine if the guy who dove out the window had a knife, or a car, or a gun.

[Diogenes]

Only at the level of a child's understanding, would the harm of the guilty be equated with the harm of the innocent.

Poorly reasoned. Guns harm the innocent and guilty alike. Drugs harm no one but those who harm themselves.

The right of arms is for the purpose of the innocent harming the guilty. The crime is when the guilty harm the innocent. If you think drugs harm no one but those who harm themselves, you need to spend more time with addicts. You'll find out who gets harmed. Apart from that, I consider the addicts to be innocent when they are first introduced to drugs. The drug is like a firearm in the hands of a criminal. Once the pusher uses it on his victim, the victim has been injured.

One of the tricks that pimps use is to find some pretty young girl, and sweet talk her into trying dope. He gives her all she wants until he's sure she's stuck on it, then he demands sex and money to give her more.
She ends up turning tricks on the street to support her drug habit. She ends up having children she doesn't want, and doesn't take care of, because she's stuck on that drug habit.

Now I think a death sentence for the pusher might be in order. It's hard to imagine causing more damage to a persons life than to get them started as a drug addict.


Researchers implanted electrodes into rats brains, connected to their pleasure centers. They gave them a button which would stimulate the pleasure centers of their brain, every time the rat pushed the button. Most of the rats ended up pushing the button and starving to death.

That's similar to how drugs work. If you think people addicted to drugs are in their right mind, you are simply not comprehending the situation.

I am shocked that you regard the right of arms used to defend oneself from those who would harm you first, as on the same footing as drugs which are not only unnecessary for life, indeed inimical, but have consequential wreckage for not only the user, but everyone around them as well.

Video games, coffee, and beer are also "unnecessary for life" and can create "consequential wreckage" for addicts. Guns can harm everyone around you too.

The items you mention are in the same direction as drugs, the difference is in their efficacy. The levels of effect are dramatically different from drugs.

As for guns harming everyone around you, that usage is a non legal and non justified use. With drugs, all usage is non legal and non justified. A more appropriate analog between guns and drugs would be a hand grenade with a trigger.

You're tying yourself in logical knots here trying to reconcile these things. Why not just acknowledge the simple truth that personal responsiblity is the question in both cases?

I am trying to make the distinctions clear to you. It just appears from your perspective that the logic is contorted. It is not the logic, but your view instead.