Actually, this is the best point of argument that you have presented thus far. 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."
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.
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?
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?
And, by the way, this topic is a little unusual for me. A glance back through the backroom files will very seldom reveal Idaho and myself to be on the same side of a given issue...bless his political leftist little heart.
Bookmarks