[_Jim]

C'mon now kissy kissy (it's what my sister tells her pet Conure/parrot when it's misbehaving) - be nice.

While I'm here WHY do governmental organizations pass laws controlling the sale, distibution (or prohibition thereof) and/or use (limits such as blood alcohol limits) of various intoxicating substances -

a) just for the hell of it
b) to collect tax revenue
c) unfettered sale and distibution has been found to cause a problem among SOME portions of the populace (the 'stupid', those unable to regulate use of said compounds)

Careful - YOUR ANSWER may parallel mine from earlier - and we can't have that now can we ...

[Pahuanui]

False dichotomy.

The reasons behind why governmental organizations pass laws controlling the sale, distibution (or prohibition thereof) and/or use (limits such as blood alcohol limits) of various intoxicating substances are not limited to only three categories.

Careful - YOUR ANSWER may parallel mine from earlier - and we can't have that now can we ...

It doesn't.

[CSM]

I would take a stab at answering your question by using the 3 options you have provided. However, the problem with what you have proposed is that you fail to distinguish between what government agencies you are discussing. When you show me the federal law regulating alcohol, then I will agree that these federal substance laws are constitutional. Until then, it should be left to the states and localities! Just like the laws you discuss regarding alcohol.

Otherwise the constitution is trampled, but it seems you support that!

[ellery]

Is it honestly your position that all laws exist for a valid reason (and not because of pandering politicians, special interests, power grabs, p*ssing contests, etc)? Politicians pass laws because they can. Some are valid, some are not. But using the existence of the law to justify the law is faulty reasoning, imo.