How can you disagree with but still 'respect' an opinion that allows our government to infringe upon our basic rights to life, liberty or property, without using due process?
I said that if one believes the use/abuse of drugs in and of itself infringes on another’s inalienable rights I could understand why such a person would want the gov’t to step in and prohibit that use/abuse. The law should exist to protect our inalienable rights. I reckon I shoulda said something like “ I respect how such an argument can be made, but I don’t reckon that I agree that drug use/abuse violates anyone’s inalienable rights, so I think you are wrong in wanting gubberment to interfere.”
Freegards