“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. “
No, they don’t. You may think they do, but they don’t.
No, they don’t. You may think they do, but they don’t.
Point out which parts of your argument from post #200 don't support alcohol restrictions that are just as strong as restrictions on other drugs:
Our neighbors need to count on us being rational in any number of situations, as do our fellow shoppers, people at our workplace, and people at places of recreation. People who are retarded or crazy are liabilities and need special attention wherever they go.
If they aren’t making themselves retarded or crazy on purpose, I have no problem making allowances.
But if they are deliberately retarding themselves or making themselves irrational, they are affecting others virtually all the time. We can’t have the laws go in and out depending on whether Mr. Crackhead [or Mrs. Alkie - JSNTN] is asleep or awake, alone in the house or has a sick wife with him, driving down an empty road or a full one, working at a bank or working all by himself in a field, had a parent nearing dementia one day and over the line the next, sitting in a classroom or sitting in a cave.