[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Taking a right from one who has taken no right from you has a destructive effect on the freedom of the people as a whole."

I'll let the insults slide; that sort of tit-for-tat holds no interest for me, although being likened to Mussolini is certainly, er, original, and tempts me to respond in kind, but no matter. None of your historical counterarguments hold weight. The tax revolt marking the end of the Caliphate was a culmination of longterm decay and dissolution. The Dark Ages were the result of the decline of the last vestiges of the Roman empire, not religious persecution. If anything, it was the Church which did the most to preserve knowledge, not suppress it. Opium use in China contributed to its downfall. 'Freedom' exercised in a free society--by any rational definition--is not unbounded license to do as one pleases.

You talk about the right to self-determination. Historically, that right refers to whole peoples, nations, not individuals. Constitutionally, in our country, individuals have the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This does not mean that commonsense constraints placed upon individual behavior are violations of those rights. I gather your right of individual self-determination is extracted from the pages of the Constitution in much the same way as 'the right to choose'. The logic is questionable in both cases.

One right you libertarian types can exercise is the right to vote. I can't wait until the next major election, when Libertarian candidates sweep the field--you know, because the logic of the libertarian position is so flawlessly indisputable, the appeal of its platform so irresistible, the raw charisma of its candidates so downright unstoppable.

[mugs99]

You talk about the right to self-determination.
Historically, that right refers to whole peoples, nations, not individuals.

In our Constitution that refers to the rights of the people in each of the several states...The federal Ggovernment does not have the power to wage a drug war.

'Freedom' exercised in a free society--by any rational definition--is not unbounded license to do as one pleases.

That is exactly what freedom means, as long as that person takes no right from you while enjoying his freedom.

you libertarian types

LOL!
Save me the sermon, preacher man. I'm an originalist who defends the Constitution. Why don't you just say Libertine instead of the pc libertarian type? Our Republic was founded by Libertines and I will remain true to their vision of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for all...even you.
.

[tpaine]

You misconstrue constitutional history:

You talk about the right to self-determination. Historically, that right refers to whole peoples, nations, not individuals.

You really do need to read our Declaration and our Preamble. We the People, - individuals all, are endowed with self-evident rights, -- not "nations".

Constitutionally, in our country, individuals have the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [or property].' -- [see the 5th & the 14th Amendments]

This does not mean that commonsense constraints placed upon individual behavior are violations of those rights. I gather your right of individual self-determination is extracted from the pages of the Constitution in much the same way as 'the right to choose'. The logic is questionable in both cases.

Our right of individual self-determination can be 'extracted' from the pages of the Constitution in the Bill of Rights & the 14th Amendment.
Your refusal to acknowledge those principles is really becoming amusing. Why do you deny your own individual rights?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

This does not mean that commonsense constraints placed upon individual behavior are violations of those rights.

Wonderful---say we go so far as to grant you that point. Under what bizarre brand of "common sense" is it logical to criminalize the use and possession of substance X "for the common good," yet not substance Y for the same reason, even though science, experience, and history has proved time and time again that substance Y is far more harmful to "the common good" than substance X?

Even if we grant you the ideological point---though I still think you err too significantly on the side of state powers---your argument doesn't hold water because it's not based on common sense, which is the lynchpin of your point.