Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
In fairness to those supporting legalization of canibas usage, the public has been hearing arguments for and against legalized usage for at least 4 decades (and probably longer). That 2 of our 54 constituent political subdivisions want to try legalization after decades of prohibition is hardly "impulsive."
The will of the people reigns supreme, but my personal vote is a firm "nay". If the people decide otherwise, there isn't much I can do about it.

By the way, your efforts earlier to lampoon Idaho's position by inserting crystal meth in place of marijuana -- thus suggesting that if we legalize one we implicitly begin the process to legalize all, even where the "all" includes some that are obviously more dangerous -- takes it the wrong direction.
It was my attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

What right have we to restrict a person's usage of any substance or service that cannot be shown to be harmful to others or to impinge on the rights of another?
Drugs have been shown to be harmful to others. That face-eating guy from Miami was a good example. Thus, public safety is a legitimate concern.

If a person chooses to destroy their mind with crystal meth, providing that they do no harm to others, how and why should the government be involved?
Same as above. It can potentially hurt the public. Compare it with the Seat Belt Laws.