[tyme]

Does/should the RKBA protect any types of illegal drugs (as 'arms')?

[Stephen Ewing]

Had to vote "none" protected by the RKBA.

Now, the Ninth Amendment, ISTM, protects drug use.

Steve

[MitchSchaft]

Considering the 2A backs up the 9A, you could correlate the 2.

[Jim March]

It's an interesting question, in light of the Air Force's documented use of crank...

Haven't emergency stimulants also been tested for various Special Forces types?

[CZ-75]

None. Nor should it. "Arms" means just that -- weapons.

To argue otherwise, dilutes it.

You may argue that the 9th and 4th do, however.

[Jim March]

Well it also means armor. Including modern type ballistic armor.

Let's think a sec here: the Olympics banned various performance-enhancing drugs for a reason, right? They *work*. You can make a horse go abnormally fast too, for that matter.

Does that have military implications? Hell yes it does.

Our right to a "free press" now covers the Internet. It didn't exist back in 1791. Neither did crank, or steroids.

Points to ponder.

Not that I disagree with the comments re: 9th/10th amendments, or the basic idea of "limited government"...

[Double Naught Spy]

No, the 2nd does not include drugs. Sorry. It is not the right to keep and bear arms and medications. Just because the military may use drugs does not make drugs become arms. The 2nd does not include underwear for that same reason. The military uses it, but it isn't a type of arm.

[QKRTHNU]

RKBA has nothing to do with drugs.

Try the 4th, 8th & 9th.

[DeltaElite]

I am more than happy to think outside the box and be challanged, but trying to slide drugs into the 2A is just plain goofy.

[Sir Galahad]

Actually, some drugs, in particular hallucinogens, would fall under the First Amendment protection of religion if the federal government still used the Constitution. Certain religions and shamanic paths use hallucinogens. Anyone recreating the Eleusinian Mysteries as a Pagan revival, for example, would need hallucinogens. The federal government does not recognize this for everyone, though they have recognized it for the Native American Church's use of peyote.

The government should not be in the business of determining which religious practices are or are not valid. In fact, the First Amendment forbids them to do that.

[ahadams]

none. RKBA is really about Arms...not pharmaceuticals.:scrutiny:

[whoami]

Definition of drugs:
1. a. A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention
of a disease or as a component of a medication.
b. Such a substance as recognized or defined by the U.S.
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
2. A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that
affects the central nervous system, causing changes in
behavior and often addiction.

Definition of arms:

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs,
bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: [/i]infantry, armor, and other
combat arms.
3. arms
a. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the
profession of arms.
4. arms
a. Heraldry. Bearings.
b. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an
organization.


Um....no, I don't see how someone could possibly stretch the right to keep and bear arms to cover the right to possess and use drugs.

[tyme]

Well, the military seems to think they're weapons: http://chemdef.apgea.army.mil/textbook/Ch-11.pdf

[tdow]

Drugs and guns don't mix well.

[MitchSchaft]

I totally misunderstood the question :o

[jmbg29]

I totally misunderstood the question Not really. In common usage we take the word "drug(s)" to mean things like pot, crack, meth, etc. not "Incapacitating Chemical Weapons".

So does the right to keep and bear arms apply to ownership of a cannon, or a chemical warhead? Probably not, unless one has a ship outfitted for "privateering" complete with a letter of marque and reprisal.

So does the RKBA apply to... say a room full of THC bearing smoke even though said smoke could be used to befuddle an enemy? No.:rolleyes:

[MitchSchaft]

I was thinking the question asked if the 2A can back up a person's use of drugs. Meaning they could defend themself against the gubment for tryin' to take their drugs away.

[jmbg29]

I was thinking the question asked if the 2A can back up a person's use of drugs. Meaning they could defend themself against the gubment for tryin' to take their drugs away.If the drugs in question were illegal, and the police announced themselves, and they had a warrant, then it would be more a question of stupid. The RKBA doesn't cover shooting it out with the cops that are lawfully executing a warrant.

Unless of course one were launching a revolution with the hope that a new nation founded on the principle of getting stoned, would work out as a good plan.

In that case, the winner of that conflict would get to set the new rules. Provided they didn't just wander off looking for munchies when the smoke cleared. :rolleyes: :scrutiny: