“You expect me to believe that 771,605 people were all in the privacy of their own homes.”
I never said that. You’re trying to move the discussion to a point that isn’t in contention, so that you can make an argument. The people who were arrested Under the Influence in public, operating a vehicle or otherwise, would have still been arrested in the decriminalization scenario.
Me: "The GOVERNMENT should tell people how to behave in the privacy of their own home."
You: “I am really getting tired of this lame argument.
Freedom is the ability of a person to behave without the influence of outside forces, in this case, the government. So you are saying that citing freedom as an “argument” is “lame”. Myself? I place much more value on that “argument”.
No, anarchy is the ability of a person to behave without the influence of outside forces.
"The voluntary support of laws, formed by persons of their own choice, distinguishes peculiarly the minds capable of self-government. The contrary spirit is anarchy, which of necessity produces despotism." --Thomas Jefferson
Huh? What are you talking about -- the "decriminalization scenario"?
"Me: "The GOVERNMENT should tell people how to behave in the privacy of their own home."
The government is NOT telling people how to behave in their own homes. They're merely making marijuana illegal.
If people wish to smoke marijuana at home, they're free to do so. Nobody can stop them from doing so. Nobody is saying that they can't smoke marijuana at home.
And certainly nobody is telling them how to behave at home.
Now, if they're caught doing something illegal, then I would fully expect them to take personal responsibility for their actions. Wouldn't you? And if everyone were smoking marijuana in the privacy of their home, I highly doubt that 771,605 people would be arrested each year.
"Freedom is the ability of a person to behave without the influence of outside forces"
No, that's the definition of maturity. That has nothing to do with freedom.