Aw, geez. The old harm vs. no harm argument. You'd have more credibility with that one if you could point out just one society/government in all of recorded history that used that philosophy as a guideline for their laws. It's a Libertarian utopian wet dream.
"And that is inherently unjust.
Oh baloney. Calling it unjust doesn't make it so. Because a law is against certain immoral behavior does not make it unjust.
"And by the way, if prohibition was "a mistake", as you so correctly pointed out, why, then, do you sanction penalizing pot smokers?"
Huh? You see some relevant connection between the two? I don't.
"Refer to your own post (#60). In response to my question about why you thought prohibition was just, you responded that alcohol was legal, implying that legal = just."
Hey, refer to this. I never said that all laws were just, nor did I ever say that the implementation of those laws equated to justice. Got it now?
You're the one doing the generalizing here, not I.
"Once again, by this reasoning, you blindly equate the law with justice."
Again ... huh?
What's with you and this law & justice fetish? There is nothing inherently unjust about a law against immoral behavior. Most of our laws are against immoral behavior. What's your problem with that?
"And once again, limiting behavior for the sake of limiting behavior isn't the proper function of government."
Oh, so you think society prohibits drugs just for the sake of prohibiting drugs? No other reason?
"yet you believe that someone else's drug use is forcing you to protect their rights?"
Watch it, bucko. I never said that, and that's the second time you put words in my mouth. Fair warning -- once more and were done. I have better things to do than spend half my posts correcting your f^&$ ups.
Nobody's drug use if forcing me to do squat. I said if anything is unjust it is forcing the majority of society, against their will, to protect the supposed "right" of people to do drugs. Which is what you would have us do.
"And if drinking alcohol socially isn't "immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destructive", how does someone smoking pot with the same or similar frequency deserve those labels?"
Getting drunk IS immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destructive. Drinking is not.
"How the heck does legalizing pot "force" you to live next to junkies or drug dealers, any more than legalizing alcohol force you to live next to Ted Kennedy???? "
No clue, huh? Let me spell it out for you. Since pot is illegal, I can have the junkies and pot dealers moved far away from me and my family. I couldn't move Ted Kennedy with a forklift.
"that you don't take behavior-modification laws as "controlling", but you think the lack of them is."
Laws against immoral behavior leave people with a choice -- they are not "controlled" or forced to do anything. 20 million illegal drug users will attest to that fact.
I have no choice if drug dealer is legally allowed to move in next door -- not like I do today.
"And by the way, it's very likely that legalizing pot would pretty much do away with pot dealers"
30% of pot smokers today are underage. If history is a guide, with legalization, that number will go up. So, with half the marijuana market being underage, you're telling me this "pot dealer" will go away and get a real job. Really? Promise?
Oh, what a wonderful world you Libertarians live in. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
We legalize marijuana and the pot dealer will sell to kids. Unless marijuana will be legal for everyone.
The pot dealer will sell other illegal drugs in addition to marijuana. Unless you're planning on legalizing all drugs, including prescription drugs.
The pot dealer will sell high THC pot. Unless you think the government will allow that.
The pot dealer will sell pot laced with other drugs. Unless they're legal also.
The pot dealer will turn from an importer into an exporter, selling our legal marrijuana to countries where it remains illegal. Unless, again, you assume the ROW will follow The Great Satan's lead.
So yeah, given those assumptions, the pot dealer will go away.
"and I doubt seriously that the number of users/abusers would increase significantly."
Your "doubt" is based on what ... hope? Certainly not on history. In the late 70's, pot use was TRIPLE the lowest level since then. And it was illegal, mind you.
"I don't avoid pot because it's illegal"
Which doesn't mean a thing.
This results in what may be seen as moral relativism or the privatisation of morality. One person's morality being as good as another's, the community may not adopt moral standards in legislation. This viewpoint is often expressed by the common and wholly fallacious remark that "You can't legislate morality." Indeed . . . we legislate little else.--Robert Bork