[tpaine]

nathanbedford wrote:

-- in view of the explicit protection afforded by the Second Amendment, I do not think that the state has the right to try to get at gun violence by restricting gun ownership.
However it is probably constitutional to try to get at drug use by prohibiting drug possession in the absence of a specific constitutional right.
That is not to say that I think it is wise.

As ironjack commented at his post #100:

There are several subtleties you're missing in oversimplifying the argument that way.
Where the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in regulating behavior, it can justify its intrusion into the private precincts of its citizens.
Butting into a person's bedroom is the ultimate intrusion, yet the state has little or no justifiable interest in doing so other than the imposition of an arbitrary morality on the subjects.
100

If it is [big IF] "probably constitutional" to try to get at drug use by prohibiting drug possession in the absence of a specific constitutional right; --
-- it can be, and is being used to try to get at gun use by prohibiting carrying/possession in the absence of a specific States constitutional 'rights'. -- Namely in New York, Illinois, and California.

Attempting to say it isn't 'wise', is in effect a form of acceptance. It tells us a lot about conservatism.

[nathanbedford]

As a constitutional conservative I distinguish between natural rights which Tom Paine vouchsafed to us two and a half centuries ago and explicit constitutional rights. We have an explicit constitutional right to bear arms. We do not have an explicit constitutional right to use drugs. Therefore I see the power of the state to legislate or prohibit the latter to be far greater than its power to regulate the former. I do not see this as a slippery slope and I do not see it as a compromise of freedom. When I deplore the unwisdom of a prohibition against drug use, I think that is an extension of freedom. Tom I think you're putting the wrong end of the telescope to your eye.