Not a straw man at all.
If it's not a straw man then how is a transaction between a buyer and dealer not consensual? Your argument didn't address that. Your argument addressed non-consensual interactions -- ie., crimes.
Deal with that through the legislature.
I addressed that issue in my previous post. Alcohol prohibition was constitutionally valid because it was made law via an amendment to the constitution. Congress knew that was the only way to make alcohol prohibition constitutionally valid.
But don't slam on LEOs for doing their job and enforcing the laws that have been enacted.
I'll not slam any person. I will point persons that support and take part in supporting unconstitutional laws. When politicians, bureaucrats and LEOs violate the constitution it is their error, not mine for pointing it out. No amount of rationalization on your part will change the facts, nor make it right to violate the constitution.
You want to live in a place where nobody can tell you what to do? That's a holdover from adolescence, and such a place does not exist. Anywhere. You can imagine, dream, wish, insist, demand and delude all you want, but it... Does. Not. Exist.
Interning that you concoct a hypothetical scenario that suits your agenda and imply that your hypothetical is my position. When in fact it is as if you are trying to frame my position while disregarding the input I already supplied. My position is that I and every person may do whatever they chose so long as they do not violate the live or property rights of another person.
To quote you "You want to live in a place where nobody can tell you what to do?" Authoritarians with collectivist ideal tell people what to do and expect them to comply with their demands. Individualists tell people to do nothing -- they demand nothing of others -- nothing, save for don't violate my life and or property rights. It seems abundantly clear to me that you've been manipulated into supporting collectivist.group-think.
Want to smoke your pot without anybody ruining your buzz? Move to the Netherlands.
Now you're just making an a$$ of yourself. I don't do illicit drugs.
See LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). A fast growing segment of persons that have or have had careers in the justice system.
What you actually wrote, to refresh your memory, is:
Besides that, drug users and even dealers engage in consensual "crimes". They are not murders, thieves or rapists whose targets/victims do not consent.
"They are not murders[sic], thieves..." I disagree.
Many drug dealers are murderers and thieves. Now you want to change what you wrote to mean that the drug trafficking itself is not harmful to anyone else, but that isn't what you wrote, and it's a significant difference in the context of this debate. In fact, if drug dealers were not frequently violent criminals, I'd assert that SWAT teams bashing in front doors would be entirely unnecessary, and therefore rare to nonexistant, to take them down.
I addressed that issue in my previous post. Alcohol prohibition was constitutionally valid because it was made law via an amendment to the constitution. Congress knew that was the only way to make alcohol prohibition constitutionally valid.
Not really. A related whine that prohibition was really really mean too isn't an answer. Both laws were legal and valid. Your argument seems to be that congress should be barred from passing legislation that you don't like.
I will point persons that support and take part in supporting unconstitutional laws.
Which laws are unconstitutional? The no-knock warrant, or laws against illicit drug trafficking and use?
And whose definition of "unconstitutional" do we use? You seem to be claiming the right to define that word yourself, since the definition used by five of the nine Justices doesn't sit well with you.
The word "unconstitutional" seems to be a favorite among libertarians much in the same way "fascist" is for liberals. It's used as an emotional hammer, with little regard to its actual meaning.
No-knock warrants and anti-drug laws are constitutional. They were passed by a majority of elected representatives and signed by the POTUS. State anti-drug laws were passed according to the provisions of their state's constitution. You just don't like them, so "unconstitutional" is the negative label you choose to hang on them.
My position is that I and every person may do whatever they chose[sic] so long as they do not violate the live[sic] or property rights of another person.
That may very well be your position, but that isn't what the Constitution says, nor is it the legal environment in which the Framers lived and for which they hoped. And it isn't the world in which you live now, though you may wish it were.
Laws that don't fit with your philosophy are not, therefore, unconstitutional.
It seems abundantly clear to me that you've been manipulated into supporting collectivist.group-think.
Oh come on, you can do better than that! Call me a poo-poo head or something.