“That line is for being in public. Our society lets you get drunk as a skunk in the privacy of your home (or that of any willing host) “
True, unless you have dependent children or dependent adults in the home.
“you’d have to support much stronger laws than are currently in place against the drug alcohol. Do you? “
No, I just support enforcing the ones already in place. I don’t see why I’d ‘have to.’
I see people who are really high as a “clear and present danger.” Because they are out of their heads and can’t be counted on to respond rationally to a given situation; indeed they tend to start situations that are hazardous.
As I said, we’d have to come to a consensus on what “really high” is, depending on the drug.. Would 1/100 of a tab of acid be ok? Maybe. But then again, no one ever takes that little, do they? They take drugs to get high.
“Affect” others is a liberal test? So say you. I am a conservative and will consider how other people’s decision affect me AND vulnerable people, without apology.
True, unless you have dependent children or dependent adults in the home.
I know of no law that our society has enacted to ban drunkenness for those with dependent children or dependent adults in the home. Please cite any such statute at any level of American government.
[text omitted by Persevero: Again, 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?
No, I just support enforcing the ones already in place. I don’t see why I’d ‘have to.’
Because the arguments you're advancing for the current drug laws equally support much stronger laws than are currently in place against the drug alcohol. If you accept only some of the logical implications of your arguments while rejecting others, they're not genuine arguments but flimsy rationalizations.
I see people who are really high as a “clear and present danger.” Because they are out of their heads and can’t be counted on to respond rationally to a given situation;
If their given situation is sitting in their home, there's no danger.
indeed they tend to start situations that are hazardous.
They, like the drunks you want to regulate much less strictly, have been known on occasion to do so - but to go far beyond that and say they "tend to" is a claim that requires actual evidence. Have any?
As I said, we’d have to come to a consensus on what “really high” is, depending on the drug.
Fine - and then we’d have to apply the no-being-really-high rules consistently. Since there's no evidence on the table for any no-being-really-high-on-alcohol rule inside private homes under any circumstances, there's no basis for such a rule for any other drug. And of course no basis here for completely banning any of them.
Would 1/100 of a tab of acid be ok? Maybe. But then again, no one ever takes that little, do they? They take drugs to get high.
But not necessarily “really high.” Again, most of the alcohol consumed in this country is consumed for the purpose of feeling its mental effects (sometimes euphemized as "relaxing" or "unwinding").
I missed your answer to this one:
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.
So there's no basis for regulating marijuana more strictly than alcohol - right?
“Affect” others is a liberal test? So say you. I am a conservative and will consider how other people’s decision affect me AND vulnerable people, without apology.
Almost everything you do during the course of a day "affects" somebody - if you hold that all those actions are properly subject to government regulation, you're no conservative.