You can replace “with limits” with “but not for acts I disapprove of” if you like. The phrases are interchangeable. I suggest you go look up “straw man argument” because I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.
You’re trying to sound intelligent but you aren’t really reading what you are writing (or at least it doesn’t seem that way). See my above post for a concise explanation as to why legalization would substantially increase the size and scope of government while still leaving the vast majority of the black market untouched.
It’s simply mind-boggling how the pro-drug folks fail to recognize the key similarities and differences between the respective policies on drugs and guns. In particular, note that while guns are essentially universally “legal,” a gigantic black market still exists to provide guns to those who can’t legally own them. The key difference, of course, is that guns have many safe, legal, and useful purposes (defense of life and property) while drugs have few.
No, they're not. "Acts I disapprove of" is (for most people) a substantially larger set than acts that are legitimately excluded from freedom.
See my above post for a concise explanation as to why legalization would substantially increase the size and scope of government while still leaving the vast majority of the black market untouched.
Done. See my reply.
In particular, note that while guns are essentially universally “legal,” a gigantic black market still exists to provide guns to those who can’t legally own them.
How "gigantic"? As large as it would be if guns were as illegal as illegal drugs?