First of all, it's quite amusing you'd entertain the idea that you could possibly exert control over another persons 1A rights. Not very American sounding. (RE: - "Don't Answer")
RE: Dummies that want to abuse hard drugs? -> "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." OR "Darwinism" if you prefer. I can draw a parallel to your gun rights. Just because some idiot psycho goes buck-nutty with a scary-looking firearm, does that mean we should take them away from YOU? It's the same deal. You must first recognize and acknowledge that fact. This other human is no more special than you. Correct? Who are they to decide what you can and can't do? (Sure, they might have more knowledge than you, but that's on you if you didn't do your due-diligence in terms of researching a substance that you were considering)
A similar argument could be made with meds. Now granted, I fully understand that SOME people can't handle their isht and go down a rabbit hole of usage. (Believe me, I have brothers who've made this point abundantly clear) And... I get that it's a problem that ends up affecting OUR pocketbooks. And that's certainly a problem. Just like looney-birds doing bad isht with AR's sometimes is. But it certainly doesn't mean that we should be handing over sole control of these meds to the governance. Just like we certainly shouldn't be handing over sole-control of YOUR firearms (in other words them being the only ones that have them) to the govt. Yes?
If we were truly given our 2A rights in the manner they were intended... yes... we all know there would be "an adjustment period" where dipsh*ts that don't think long-term would do foolish things and possibly manage to harm others before they themselves get taken out. Obviously I get that. However... I sincerely believe that if we had the necessary change in cultural belief and shift in terms of the citizenry embracing their 2A rights... I think you'd quickly see a shift in the behaviour of these jagoffs. Because.... just like if your dog ends up killing another dog, how by law that dog must be put down... it ends up removing those aggressive genes from the gene pool. Likewise... I assert that fairly quickly.... even the dummies left would start to figure out that since everyone around them could take them out if they acted a fool, that they'll start re-thinking their choices. Either that, or they'll be dead. Either way, problem solved. Not saying there wouldn't be some good people who might be casualties during "the adjustment period". I'm just saying that if you put your finger into a turned-on light socket.... for most folks... you'd only ever have to do that one darn time before you learn to never ever do that again. Likewise, the bad apples?... They're hard-heads lacking logic and reason who don't learn unless the consequences are extremely severe. And obviously, the threat of prison is not severe enough. Agreed? (Besides the fact that it has largely become the modern equivalent to legalized for-profit slavery.)
RE: Helping drug addicts get their lives back? Well... certainly there's some amount of moral/social obligation to *try*. But this BS of indefinitely trying... that's just dumb. It results in the good folks on here who are first-responders wasting time that could instead be used towards saving the lives of YOUR loved ones who contribute to society! Folks who give a damn and contribute to society rather than only take away from it, and I think there's certainly some argument to be made there. Perhaps a 3-strikes rule might be called for in that regard?
(NOTE: "drug attics" would be a bad idea for a place to store meds as it gets really hot up there in the crawlspace underneath a roof. Sorry, you set me up too easy for that one.
)
And yes, duh, of course this post is a little off-the-rails in terms of diverging from the original topic. But needed to be mentioned nonetheless.