in some cultures we have some, regardless, we have moral obligations. I don’t need the state to tell me what to do
The state telling people what to do is exactly what you're advocating: "for it being illegal."
No, they (our neighbors) count on us being nondangerous, which is a considerably looser standard.
No, I need the guy at the workplace to be sane, not nodding out or talking to people who aren’t there.
Your employer doesn't let him come in drunk, and wouldn't let him come in drugged.
I need my neighbor to tell me if my house is on fire. I need the guy on the road to flash the lights at me if there is a road hazard.
If you want me to work for you, pay me, don't enslave me.
I need the man camping next to me at Yosemite to treat me as a human being rather than deciding I am a vampire.
Like I said, nondangerous.
By the way, all your arguments apply to the drug alcohol - so what policies do you support regarding that drug?
No, they apply to drunkenness. A person who has had a drink or two or three, depending, is neither retarding himself nor making himself nuts. I support all the laws against public drunkenness and etc.
Unless you support laws against private drunkenness, you can't consistently support laws against private druggedness. And even public drunkenness laws don't apply to ANY degree of alcohol influence, whereas below you seem to suggest that ANY degree of drug influence is immoral and should be illegal.
If you truly believed the arguments you're advancing for the current drug laws, you'd have to support much stronger laws than are currently in place against the drug alcohol. Do you?
If you are able to take a drug without getting “high,” then I am all for you taking it if you want. Then again, if it didn’t make you “high,” then you wouldn’t want to take it, would you?
Most of the alcohol consumed in this country is consumed for the purpose of feeling its mental effects (sometimes euphemized as "relaxing" or "unwinding").
There’s a reason liberals are so fond of that line (no man is an island); perhaps you should ponder that before embracing their argument.
I don’t need to ponder liberals’ thinking.
No, clearly you do need to - whether you will is of course up to you.
Yes, JSNTN, alcohol, caffeine, heck a candy bar affect the mind. Libertarians want everything black and white. That is not reality.
A person who has a glass of wine or two, is not retarding themselves or making themselves crazy. A bottle of Jack? Yep. Our society plugs it at about .08 alcohol in the blood, give or take. Arbitrary? Somewhat. Yet, a line must be drawn. In a real world.
Lines get drawn in somewhat arbitrary fashions. For instance, what is an “adult?” I was pretty much an adult by 16. Some 20 year olds I know are not any sort of adult. Most of us fall somewhere in between. Society “arbitrarily” chooses 18, right now. There have been variations and exception in human history. Yet, a line must be drawn. In a real world.
Can you function perfectly nicely after having one hit or two of pot? I think so. Society could perhaps choose a level of inebriation, a thc blood content or something, to rather arbitrary define the difference between unwinding and stoned out of the gourd. I’ve seen people so stoned on pot they are incoherent. I’ve seen the long term effects of paranoia and uselessness that accompany pot. But will one hit do it to you? No.
You’d like to pretend that we can get high to the point of stupidity or crazy and it won’t affect others. That is a false belief. It is not a conservative belief. And my beliefs are not liberal.
They are realistic. You need to get out of the realm of the theoretical and live a real life. Where people must interact with each other and there must be a minimum of trust, sanity, and rationality.
Otherwise, the nuts rule the world. And nuts are not usually very nice.