[Che Chihuahua]

When you can establish a rational nexus between socialized medicine and controlled substance laws then I can give you an answer. BTW, I wouldn't characterize myself as being a "rabid supporter" of controlled substance laws. But I have formed an opinion as to what happens to an otherwise normal person that abuses a perception-altering substance. As a former public defender, I handled many alcohol (and drug)-related DUIs in which many defendants thought they were doing nothing wrong by either drinking a 12-pack of beer or snorting some coke and then driving. The Libertarian position on drugs works well when you're on a small island by yourself and can't hurt anyone by either killing him or making her pay higher health insurance premiums to pay for socially irresponsible substance abusers. In other words, there's always a price for freedom.

[dcwusmc]

You may not be "rabid" but you seem to be right next door to it.

No one is talking about folks having some right or another to present a clear danget to others by driving or flying or any similar activity while under the influence of ANY substance, currently legal or otherwise, so you can quit beating that straw dog.

So the CRUX of the issue is this: do YOU, Che Chihuahua, have the legitimate authority to go to your next door neighbor and demand that he, on pain of being locked in your basement for five or ten years and having you steal his house, car and cash, either ingest or refrain from ingesting what YOU deem proper for him? If you think so, please let me know from whence this authority derives.

If you do NOT have this authority and yet you profess to believe that this is a nation of laws under the Constitution in which the government gets its (VERY LIMITED) authority from we, the People, how do you reconcile this disconnect? Unless you happen to think that we, the People, do NOT own our own lives, but are the property of government, to be ruled by our betters (of which you appear to think you are one) for our own good and to ensure that we do not damage government property... Is THAT what it is? Otherwise, what is your rationalization for the evil that is the War on Some Drugs?

You are, however, 100% correct in noting that freedom has a price... Just wrong in context. The price is the effort it takes to keep self-righteous jackasses from running roughshod over us in the name of protecting us from ourselves. If you think that describes you, well, you'd be the one to know either way.