[timm22]

The same argument is used against pornography. You cannot be consistent and for one but against the other based on the outcome you want.

That's the problem with empowering the government to protect us from being offended. It seems like everything is offensive to some group, so eventually everything becomes subject to criminal prohibition.

Better to restrict the government to preventing more substantial harms, instead of giving it the power to squash anything that might make someone uncomfortable.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

It is already in the Constitution: "Congress shall make NO LAW..." Justice Black always said, "No law means no law." But he was in a distinct minority from busybodies on the Left and Right.

Same thing with drugs. The Interstate Commerce clause allows regulation of drugs only because it has been reinterpreted to allow regulating everything. People on the Right just don't get it that they needed to go to the trouble of a Prohibition Amendment, not a conspiracy with the Left to bastardize the language and help them institute tyranny. They didn't and don't do it because the first one didn't work and clearly neither would a new one. It takes a broad tyranny just to keep the lid on and fake it.