Oh seriously? This is getting old. I don’t know, let’s think.
Commerce couldn’t exist without it?
I am not willing to pay any costs for anyone else’s “right” to get stoned.
But you’re willing to impose costs on others for your right to drive recreationally? Nice.
Yes, we have to live and move around. We are not potted plants.
What, if anything, does the word "recreational" convey to your mind?
Going to the mall? Going out to dinner? Going to the theater? Taking the long way around to home because the view is nice? Visiting my Grandma?
I'd say driving for the sake of driving, as some people do. Commerce can exist without such driving, and we don't have to do it to escape potted-planthood. What are the benefits of such driving that don’t exist for recreational drug use? And are you willing to impose costs on others for your right to drive for the sake of driving?
“I’d say driving for the sake of driving, as some people do. Commerce can exist without such driving, and we don’t have to do it to escape potted-planthood. What are the benefits of such driving that don’t exist for recreational drug use? And are you willing to impose costs on others for your right to drive for the sake of driving? “
I believe costs already exist, in point of fact, in terms of the payment of auto insurance.
As for commerce, you are using gas, wheels, oil, seeing places you might like to go sometime, stopping even if you hadn’t planned to, discovering new routes, etc.
I really wonder if none of this even occurs to you? Or are you just arguing for the sake of being argumentative?