Indulge me, Amy.

While you don't believe the government should be allowed to stop us from consuming whatever plant we want, you also say, "What they can do, and what I support, is stopping you from, say, flying a bi-plane into somebody's roof while high off your ass."

And how do you propose they do that? How can the government stop you from flying a biplane into someone's house while high?

It's that false sense of protection and/or security that the government wants you to feel. But the reality is, no one can be "protected" from anything happening before it happens. The best the police can do is show up after something happens. That's why these so-called "protective orders" don't really work. You can file in any court for a protective order or a restraining order, but the reality is, if someone wants to hurt you, a piece of paper isn't going to stop them. Unless of course, that person is honorable enough to accept that there actually IS an order in place, and they are willing to obey it. Which isn't always the case. While there are laws in place for our "protection", there aren't really any ways to enforce them before you need protection, unless you escape harm the first time. Then you can always hire armed guards. But except for the wealthy, who can afford that?

I was merely playing devil's advocate, since I'm perfectly fine with pot being legalized, even though I never touch it.

The point I was making, which you defused by pointing out that you were exaggerating is that apart from laws that prevent you from even using the stuff, there really is no way that the government can protect you from someone stoner flying into your house.

Unlike drunkenness, it doesn't lend itself to easy detection by observation.

>> the government should have absolutely no say in that.

It shouldn't and there is already legal precedent that the federal government has no legal power to do so. It's called the 18th amendment which was required because it was recognized that the Federal Government had no right to ban a substance, outside of a constitutional amendment. There is no difference between alcohol and any other drug in this context. The whole federal war on drugs is blatantly unconstitutional.

The point I was making . . . is that apart from laws that prevent you from even using the stuff, there really is no way that the government can protect you from someone stoner flying into your house.

And how do laws which prevent us from using the stuff acctually stop people from using the stuff?

When people think of only the big things like pot or the right to swear on TV, they will ignore or lose sight of the little things. All those little things cut and taken away. Before you know it your rights and liberties have been cut to pieces.

"What do we want, the right to smoke pot"
"Hey I was just told I could NOT take this herb for my condition."
"Go away, the pot is more important. Besides the FDA is protecting you from harm. I heard that one could cause cancer."

Yes, McDonalds and other fast food joints should be closed and banned. Says the smug limousine liberal. Waiter, my meal tastes different, why does the cheese taste different.
"Sorry the farm we get are cheese from was raided today by men with machine guns."

"Mom, I am cold. Can you please buy me a jacket."
"Maybe, next pay check."
"You just bought one at the Salvation Army, why did you not get me one."
Sorry honey, you might suck on the zipper and get lead poisoning".

snip... snip.... snip....
little by little.

"And how do laws which prevent us from using the stuff acctually stop people from using the stuff?"

Hang on - you know this already.

This happens by removing the substance from commercial trade.

Just as subsidies for single motherhood enable more people to be single mothers, enabling commercial trade increases access to any item, including drugs.

Pleas that the public will act responsibly when this happens simply fail.

See what happens when you can buy a Hummer? Some folks in California think you shouldn't be able to. They then turn around and say that the same person will be a "responsible" drug user, and usually cite an exception to try to prove that.

Hang on - you know this already.

This happens by removing the substance from commercial trade.

Yeah, I live in a fairly rural area. I'm an addict and studiously avoid everything. But even I know where to buy weed, meth and oxy.

I can engage in commerce anytime I want

Amy and luj: you are simply pretending that the current availability levels will be the same after commercial trade is allowed. That's not true.

And Amy - you've just posted an article about the devastation at an Indian reservation due to alcohol sales.

That has no social costs, right?

Somehow no one wants to discuss the moral obligation of an enabler. Hey, those horrible failures, where careers and fortunes are lost in addiction, that's FUN to see, isn't it? That Charlie Sheen, ha ha, what a riot. Lindsay Lohan... rich stars can bite it, right?

No. They're outnumbered tens of thousands to one by people trapped by their addiction. That's not a victory.

Your whole attitude boils down to the ridiculous premise that laws are not necessary because people will behave. Talk it through. Be logical. Police misconduct is NOT the issue with legalizing drugs - it's been an issue with the 2nd Amendment crowd for more than 40 years.

Build the case correctly. Show the impact on an industrial society, partially socialized with more on the way, when the use of drugs increases.

Because you've said right here that enabling something results in more use.

You are right Rad, I've changed my position, government does know best, Drug bans (for drugs made by people not contributing to politicians) food bans, product bans. What ever the government order, right commrade?