the arguments youre 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, theyre not genuine arguments but flimsy rationalizations.
No, they dont. You may think they do, but they dont.
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 arent 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 cant 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.
“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:”
A glass or two or three of alcohol depending upon the size and duration does not keep you from rational thinking, or have any but beneficial long term effects.
All other drugs do; save for a puff or two of marijuana; which I’ve never heard of or seen someone do; ‘cause they always go until they are high; but if you want to allow for a person to take a puff or two and be held just as liable for a glass or two or three, put me down for that.
As I have stated before.