Now you sound like a lib. If we would only embrace our enemies they'd love us, and we'd all just get along. You demonize some of the tactics of the War on Terror, with the implied parallel argument of demonizing some of the tactics of the War on Drugs in order to discredit the effort, but you make an overly sweeping assertion. A society has a right to community standards. Anarchy is not a right. The absence of the rule of law is not freedom.
So you support each state's right to legalize drugs within its borders without federal interference?
Naturally. Every state is a miniature experiment. The states with stupid ideas (e.g. high taxes, reverse discrimination in hiring, excessive welfare-state benefits that discourage productivity,....legalizing heroin?) will eventually suffer because of their ill-considered practices. The states with better ideas will thrive, and eventually the states with stupid ideas will adopt the practices of the successful states. Federalism, as envisioned by the founders.
I see you're falling into the pattern of a typical 'liberal-tarian', with a parochial habit of continually asking questions in lieu of a coherent defense.
Great, by that perverse logic, let’s legalize terrorism, so we can end the “war on terror”.
How does the war on terror incentivize additional endangerment of innocent people?
Now you sound like a lib. If we would only embrace our enemies they'd love us, and we'd all just get along.
Wrong - I asked a question, which you are apparently unable to answer. But since you indicate below that you find asking questions to be suspect for some reason, here's a statement: the war on terror doe not incentivize additional endangerment of innocent people (and so my anti-WoD argument does not apply there).
You demonize some of the tactics of the War on Terror, with the implied parallel argument of demonizing some of the tactics of the War on Drugs in order to discredit the effort,
Wrong again - any connection between the wars is your baseless inference not my implication.
but you make an overly sweeping assertion. A society has a right to community standards. Anarchy is not a right. The absence of the rule of law is not freedom.
Straw man - I argue not for anarchy but an end to futile and counterproductive drug bans.
So you support each state's right to legalize drugs within its borders without federal interference?
Naturally. [...] Federalism, as envisioned by the founders.
Good to hear! Many FR Drug Warriors frantically tap-dance around states' rights.
I see you're falling into the pattern of a typical 'liberal-tarian', with a parochial habit of continually asking questions in lieu of a coherent defense.
That's pretty funny considering that my text to which you first replied was not a question. As a man of consistent principle, I'm sure you won't be asking me any - although if you did you might be less prone to false inferences and straw men.