Don’t get me started on the drug mess. I’d just as soon let anyone dumb enough to use the crap knock themselves out, do it to their heart’s content, as long as I don’t have to support their behavior. But that’s not how it works. Take alcoholism, a BEHAVIOR with bad results. The damned liberals have made it into a disease for which I have to pay in the form of increased taxes to help those “suffering” from this “disease”. If they can’t handle a drink they should not take one; if they do so with bad consequences it’s supposed to be at their own risk. When the potheads crack addicts and methheads have toked their way to unemployability, they’ll be “victims” of the next “disease (really a BEHAVIOR) and have their hand in my pocket like the alkies. Bottom line, why should I pay for their behaviors?
But policies should be consistent and well understood, fed, state and local.
So is that sufficient reason to ban alcohol? If not, why would it be sufficient reason to ban other drugs?
But policies should be consistent
Why? Part of the genius of federalism is that it lets the states be the "laboratories of democracy."
and well understood,
Certainly.
fed, state and local.