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.
It was my attempt at reductio ad absurdum.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.
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.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?
Same as above. It can potentially hurt the public. Compare it with the Seat Belt Laws.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?
Bookmarks