[Hemingway's Ghost]

And hey, if you think you have been harmed by a person's act of possessing drugs across the street or across town or across the state or across the country you could take that person to court before an impartial jury and do your best to convince them that you were harmed by the act of the defendant possessing drugs.

I've said this on FR ever since I started participating in the Drug War Threads. There is no harm unless it's proveable in court.

[Zon]

It holds in all instances. So long as a person has the right of free association they have the choice to refuse association or grant it.

Think of the prohibition of smoking in business establishments. Think of the business owner that chooses not to allow certain acts or people on their property. Assuming the business owner or property owner is not holding a person hostage the employee or customer or home-visitor has the choice to not associate -- leave the property -- as much as the business owner or home owner has the right to refuse to associate.

The status quo claim is that it violates a person's rights for a business to refuse a person access to the business. Yet, to pass a law forcing the business to grant access to a person violates the business owner's rights.

The status quo inverts justice.

[Mojave]

There is no harm unless it's proveable in court.

Then by your "reasoning", there's no harm in the drug laws.