[SteveMcKing]

"You advocate getting rid of criminals by making illegal the activities they enjoy, regardless of the fact that many noncriminals enjoy those same activities; that's punishing the innocent."

That's the nature of law. I would prefer a world of anarchy, but no populated region can cope with that. Only the wilderness is truly free, and that's all gone.

The most practical mode of having both worlds - the best of yours and mine - would be to allow drug zones and drug-free zones. This is the spirit of confederacy: to escape all public interest in the life and freedom of citizens. Today's election map (see my profile) would make an excellent model for such a government, with every blue dot representing some draconian state that has no power over the red zone.

Unfortunately there is tremendous overlap between urban and rural existence, and everyone from ditzy blonde daughters to the MS-13 gang are in frequent violation of - and fierce competition for - each other's cultural territory (all seeking sex, power, and profit for themselves).

Hence, The Culture War... whose greatest progeny would be The Drug War.

[Know your rights]

You advocate getting rid of criminals by making illegal the activities they enjoy, regardless of the fact that many noncriminals enjoy those same activities; that's punishing the innocent.

That's the nature of law.

No it's not. Nothing requires that non-rights-violating acts like drug use be illegal.

I would prefer a world of anarchy

Not me ... I would prefer a world where violations of rights, and nothing else, were illegal.