Why? There's no force or fraud involved, so let's go for it.
Even if it weren't, parents have the right if not obligation to protect their child from their immaturity that renders them unable to make informed choices.
So contrary to your Article 1, we should be able to interfere with the crack dealer's right to enter into contracts to sell his product.
If it were an adult (potential customer) the dealer was attempting to make a sale to the potential customer could take the dealer to court and try to convince an impartial jury that he was harmed by the drug dealers attempt to sell him drugs.
Oh? And what form would such an argument take? You and I are standing on a street corner, when I offer you a nice, fat eight-ball of blow. Please explain how this offer, in and of itself, has harmed you. Be as specific as possible.
Why? There's no force or fraud involved, so let's go for it.
I've explained numerous times on this thread how threat of fraud is involved. Furthermore, if the act of selling drugs to a minor is completed it would be fraud. The remainder of your post is irrelevant due to your refusal to comprehend and acknowledge how the threat of fraud is foisted on the child.
Zon: If it were an adult (potential customer) the dealer was attempting to make a sale to the potential customer could take the dealer to court and try to convince an impartial jury that he was harmed by the drug dealers attempt to sell him drugs.680
Oh? And what form would such an argument take? You and I are standing on a street corner, when I offer you a nice, fat eight-ball of blow. Please explain how this offer, in and of itself, has harmed you. Be as specific as possible.
In quoting me you omitted the very next sentence that partially addressed your question. Here it is: Most likely, if the judge didn't dismiss the case the impartial jury would find that no harm was done to the plaintiff. And the paragraph that followed further addressed why an adult would almost never take such a claim to court.
To specifically answer your question, as a legal adult, which we both are, you have not harmed me and thus I wouldn't take you to court. Thanks for glorifying The Point: It's wholly unnecessary to have a law to protect me from that which doesn't harm me. You don't need a law to protect you from a drug dealer offering to sell you drugs -- a law that criminalizes the drug dealer.
Frankly, your response is baffling, how could you not see the trap you set for yourself.
The WOD serves political agenda and the parasites that prey on innocent citizens whom are minding their own business.
BTW, I see that you are a new poster to the forum. A kindly word of advice: read my tagline. It especially applies to politicians, bureaucrats and their bedfellows.