[LIConFem]

"In your world, drunk driving would be allowed, and the driver punished only if he harms another person or their property. Correct?"

Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of mind-altering drugs (pot, alcohol, et cetera), carries with it a reasonable risk of harm to others, and as such, I have no problem restricting such behavior. And the difference between that and smoking pot in your living room are so obvious as to make the comparison absurd. But I suspect even you know that.

"Speeding, reckless driving, weaving, driving after dark without headlights, driving an unsafe vehicle ... all these things would be allowed for the same reason. Correct?"

See above...

"And that's just one small part of your world. Do you really think people want to live that way? Pedophiles as babysitters. Gays as scout leaders. Airline pilots on drugs. "

See above...

"Look, if you don't like the rules set by society either change them or go live your life above the tree line and smoke dope to your heart's content."

And I choose the former, if only to annoy collectivist, puritanical nanny-staters like you. :o)

And by the way... the issue for me has little to do with the legalization of pot. The issue is personal freedom/responsibility.

"But if you choose to walk erect among us, then you live by our rules. Take that!"

LOL!!! Man, if that was your best shot, ...

[robertpaulsen]

"... carries with it a reasonable risk of harm to others"

Whoa!

"Reasonable risk of harm"? You said nothing about reasonable risk before. You said actual harm. Let me see ... ah, here it is:

"There's a difference between punishing behavior that results in harm (either to people or property) and restricting behavior for the sake of restricting behavior. The former is justice. The latter represents government intrusion into the life of the individual. And that is inherently unjust."

Hmmmm. Nothing in there about "reasonable risk of harm". Plus, you're admitting you accept some arbitrary, politically driven BAC limit as not being "intrusive into the life of the individual"?? Pretty selectively indignant, aren't you?

Well, now that you've opened the door, then allow me to retort. It appears to come down to society's definition of "reasonable" risk, now doesn't it? And I would venture to say that legal drug use DOES represent a reasonable risk to society. As do the majority of citizens.

"And I choose the former, if only to annoy collectivist, puritanical nanny-staters like you. :o)"

Yes. You believe your crusade to be moral and just. Yawn.

"And by the way... the issue for me has little to do with the legalization of pot. The issue is personal freedom/responsibility."

Oh, for sure. The standard disclaimer for almost all the drug supporters here at FR.

"Man, if that was your best shot, ..."

Actually, it was my parting one.