I'd say that people have the right to partake in whatever mind altering substances they'd like even if 95% of others disagree. Your appeal to democratic collectivism is fallacious.

The rule of law and courts were supposed to protect such minorities (ie drug legalization through generalized privacy of Roe v Wade, and trade via the right to free speech). It's pretty fucked up that the legal system has rotted so thoroughly that the courts are harshly persecuting them while the majority of interested people dissent.

Then again, much of that rot is due to the "war on drugs" and its underlying philosophy that people exist to serve their government.

This comment defines the middlebrow dismissal.

Unless you live in a jurisdiction where the purchase of narcotics is legal (Mars?) the meaning of "People have a right to buy drugs" is quite clear.

In a world where the laws you invoke are responsible for so much suffering and death, to come in with a "Well, legally" and pretend the moral dimension does not exist is... well, I've already said what that is.

Legally, certain people were considered less equal than others. That doesn't make the law just in and of itself.

As for having a right to drugs, every man has a right to do what they please with their body.

Often times breaking a bad law, and helping others to break it, is an important step in moving public opinion, which is how you take it up with the Congress.

> That's very unlikely to work, now what?

Try harder, like by working to convince the public that such a right should exist, so that other people join you in your effort to convince Congress to change the law.

Also very unlikely to work unless you happen to be extremely talented at this and spend your life doing it. And even then, it could take decades.

Yes, radically changing everyone's idea about what rights should exist is hard.

Of course, you haven't provided any argument here for your position on rights, just a bald statement that the right you would like to exist does, as if that were some kind of uncontroversial, universally-accepted thing that required no justification.

> And you've made a bald statement equivocating between the morality of legality of something.

No, I haven't. "Equivocating" is, you know, pretty exactly the opposite of "expressly disambiguating".

> Would you like a list of examples where extremely illegal actions are clearly and controversially moral

Presuming you mean "clearly and uncontroversially", no.

Though if you are arguing that "the right to buy drugs" is in that category, I'd like to see an argument for that.

Next step is probably not starting a drug empire.

Now you continue to not have the legal right to buy illegal drugs.