So, behavior that does not impinge on the rights of others should be allowed. Like DWI.
If there is no accident then there’s no difference between impaired and sober drivers, except that sober drivers are involved in twice as many fatal accidents as impaired drivers.
And assassins that miss their target should go free. By doper logic at least.
Of course. That is the basis of a free society. Anything else is totalitarianism.
Like DWI.
Ridiculous hyperbole. Driving while under the influence of a mind-altering substance has obvious implications that directly impinge on the rights of others.
Totalitarians and fascists seek to regulate intent. Drugs are proscribed because the user might try to drive a car or sell them to children. The rational solution to that is to make the penalties for the behavior that does impinge on others' rights swift, harsh, and consistent. It is rational to have laws preventing the sale of drugs (including alcohol) to children. Such action impinges on the rights of parents to raise their offspring. It is rational to have laws with harsh penalties for driving while intoxicated. Such behavior carries a demonstrably high risk, approaching even a certainty, of injury and death for other drivers, thereby impinging on their right to live.
And finally, drug laws are about control. The fundamental basis for them is that one group of people is engaging in activity that another group of people find objectionable. Once a system is in place that allows such control, tyranny is the inevitable result.