Replies

"Behavior has consequences. It's the consequences that are often the result of bad behavior that should be punished. But laws that take away an adult's personal freedom, on the assumption that NO ONE will behave responsibly are, in my view, immoral and unjust."

Well, let's take a peek at your utopia, and only as it applies to driving. In your world, drunk driving would be allowed, and the driver punished only if he harms another person or their property. Correct?

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

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.

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. I truly don't care what you do in your cabin in the wilderness.

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

"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, ...

Paulsen pontificates, and shoots down his own case:

The United States is a nation that believes in the rule of law. We, of all the nations on this planet, have democratic ways of amending our laws.
We don't need to resort to breaking the law to do so.

Exactly rob, -- we are breaking our own law of the land with the 'war on drugs'.. There is no amendment to prohibit drugs in our Constitution.

Other than our drug laws (which I don't consider a moral cause) what was the last issue where you considered law breaking to be morally justified? Civil rights in the 60's? And before that?

None of our fed & state laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms are morally justified. They are repugnant to our basic constitutional principles, as are all such prohibitive decrees.

Too bad you can't take your own advice paulsen. We've had Constitutional rules for over 200 years, rules you scoff at and want to change [without amendment] to allow a 'moral war' on drugs; -- and anything else you consider "immoral"..

Get real.. You & your cohort do not have the delegated power to wage moral war, nor does any level of government.