I need only point to California people vs. kelly in 2010 as one of a string of decisions that has made medical marijuana use recognized as a right in California.
In Colorado, Oregon, Washington much the same path has been followed and the laws and court decisions are freely available in the public domain.
Really! If you're interested.
“Red herring - nobody here has said one should act contrary to court rulings”
You're attempting to refute an argument that hasn't been made since you've missed the actual one.
Principles of what determines what acts are tyrannical? One or two of many would be the manner of performance of the act, the authority behind it, the treatment of of those might disagree, etc.
“But marriage is a choice - as is whom to marry. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.”
That's O.K. I'm sure.
Really? Which courts and when?
I need only point to California people vs. kelly in 2010 as one of a string of decisions that has made medical marijuana use recognized as a right in California.
That falls well short of your claimed "right to drug use."
and being a law abiding person I have to accept that decision not approve it.
Red herring - nobody here has said one should act contrary to court rulings.
You're attempting to refute an argument that hasn't been made
Then why did you introduce the subject of accepting that decision as a law abiding person?
since you've missed the actual one.
Once again, you can explain yourself or be coy and let readers draw their conclusions as to why.
Principles of what determines what acts are tyrannical? One or two of many would be the manner of performance of the act, the authority behind it, the treatment of of those might disagree, etc.
You've indicated what those principles might look like but not what they are. "The authority behind it" - what are the limits to the public's authority?
But marriage is a choice - as is whom to marry. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.
That's O.K. I'm sure.
I didn't realize you were here to talk to yourself.
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.