How so? How is it more rational to prohibit one drug over another? How is it rational to prohibit any drug?
If you can't challenge it any better than by resorting to, "if alcohol is legal then all drugs should be legal to be consistent", then you need to withdraw.
Childish. I presented a predicate and a conclusion, you presented "it is so because it is so." You know that your argument is empty and intellectually dishonest as well as I do.
But since this is what the citizens want, and it's constitutional, it is the proper function of government to implement it through their police power.
I see, so if the citizens suddenly decide it is time for robertpaulsen to give up everything he owns and live naked in a cave, then you will conclude that such is a proper function of government. You have a lot to learn. I suggest you start with a google search of the phrase "tyranny of the majority."
As for the constitutionality of these laws, that is debatable, but once again, this discussion is on whether it is a proper function of government to micromanage individual behavior. If you argue that it is, then you are a fascist and a statist by definition, and we have nothing further to discuss.
So we're supposed to believe you when you say the drugs in your possession are for you to ingest? They're not going to be sold to children? They're not going to be shipped interstate? Gosh, do you promise?
Yes, and you have to take my word for it. Only fascists disbelieve the citizenry and seek to micromanage behavior. Substitute guns for drugs in your example and remove the reference to ingestion. I guess you will want a war on guns as well.
Are you saying each state does not have the power to prohibit some or all recreational drugs within the state?
Not at all, but if you had been paying attention, you would know that I have been arguing that such power is not a proper function of government, regardless of at what level.
Perhaps you do not understand what is meant by "proper function of government." The phrase refers to what the bounds of the social contract are. It does not refer to any powers the state (as in government) assigns to itself or are assigned to it by the herd. Drug prohibition is not a proper function of government because it impinges on the rights of the individual for a behavior that does not impinge on the rights of others.
Your entire argument is ex post facto. You defend the drug laws because they are the laws. Your argument is that they are proper because they are the law. Those of us who oppose those laws will continue to work for their removal. We are making progress. More mainstream politicians have begun to understand that the war on drugs is pointless and destructive. At the point where these laws disappear, then by your logic, we will have reached an acceptable state and you will be beholden to defend the absence of any prohibition.
How is it rational to pretend that beer and meth are the same?
So, behavior that does not impinge on the rights of others should be allowed. Like DWI.