Unless you are a true anarchist, everybody believes in “freedom with limits.”
Pro-drug legalization people make such continually stupid arguments that I’m amazed any of them call themselves conservatives. All of that typical stage one thinking usually comes from the left.
Of particular interest is the fact that *any* amount of legalization of *any* currently banned substance will substantially INCREASE the size and scope of government. Is that what you want?
Citation?
Unless you are a true anarchist, everybody believes in “freedom with limits.”
I didn't say just "limits," did I? I used a much more restrictive phrase. Go look up "straw man argument" - then feel embarassed.
Pro-drug legalization people make such continually stupid arguments that I’m amazed any of them call themselves conservatives. All of that typical stage one thinking usually comes from the left.
At least save the chest-thumping till you've actually won the argument - and learned not to commit stage one thinking like your straw man argument above.
Of particular interest is the fact that *any* amount of legalization of *any* currently banned substance will substantially INCREASE the size and scope of government.
It's theoretically possible that it takes more bureaucracy to regulate a legal substance than to seek, prosecute, and imprison sellers and buyers of an illegal substance - but it seems unlikely, and you've presented no reason to believe it. And it's clearly false that the scope of government increases - the scope of "we forbid all buying or selling" is self-evidently greater than the scope of "we forbid buying or selling that doesn't conform to regulations X, Y, and Z."