I’ve been mulling this over lately, and a little input would be very nice, if you could manage it. I checked the forum for already existing topics, and found this particular one helpful, but a bit too specific to really answer my question.
Should any substance be considered illegal due to it’s properties? For instance, I beleive the vast majority of the people here support the legalization of guns. But what about mustard gas, napalm, bombs, or cyanide? Where does one draw the line, or does one draw the line at all?
Additionally, what about potentially productive resources like Uranium or Plutonium? I for one would be happy to see more nuclear power plants, but would be a bit nervous if nuclear weapons were privitized. I’m already nervous enouth about the the government’s stash. This is a bit of a dramatization, granted, but I believe the principal stands. A better example would be something like genetically altered vegetables. In both cases, the substance could be used for one’s own profit, and would be a great benefit to consumers as well, but the risks are nonetheless, extremely high, and in the wrong hands, could be disasterous.
If we do allow these dangerous substances, what criteria should decide if the owner is qualified to handle these materials?
The line is drawn at the point where the substance constitutes a threat of physical invasion. Since when something actually might constitute an invasion is contextual, then most of these things you mention can’t be considered illegal in any and all situations. E.g., Would it be illegal for me to have a bomb or mustard gas in my apartment right now? Yes certainly. Would it be illegal for me to be a company producing bombs for military use, or a construction company for building demolition? Probably not. Anyways, here is a good paper that on contextuality and weapon prohibition: