Replies

You see "no need" for pot or other illegal drugs, and General Carmona sees "no need" for tobacco.

No sir, you misrepresent me there.

Where Carmona and I disagree is on the presumption of liberty. Just like with the presumption of innocence, the side of liberty wins by default unless the opposition can overcome it.

In the case of tobacco, it's up to my opponent to prove that my using it causes enough harm to society that my liberty interest is outweighed. I don't have to prove a "need" for tobacco. I don't have to prove a thing. He does.

It's the exact same with drugs. And what I've argued here is that allowing the use of drugs causes such harm to society that liberty interest is outweighed by society's interest. You don't have to prove a thing. I do.

This is exactly how the temperance movement handled the matter. They did it legitimately, following the Constitution. They made a mistake, clearly. And it's possible I'm making a mistake. (To my credit, though, I'm not advocating an amendment nor any other federal control.)

But where Carmona and I differ is that I proceed legitimately, giving liberty its due honor. You have to grant me that much, don't you?