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.
Your original post, which is not even a coherent or grammatical sentence. I have to infer what you meant by it, then you claim my inference is incorrect though my inference made a better argument that you are capable of -- which is not surprising since your original statement is more nonsense than fact. "Hooch" is by definition illegal and shipping it implies marketing of it, so there will always be incentives to ship it, to avoid liquor taxes. Or if you carelessly meant homebrewed liquor by "hooch", then in order for homebrewed liquor sales to be legal, the tax revenues on all liquor would have to be eliminated to forego any competitive advantage by the unlicensed "hooch" makers, an unrealistic expectation. More likely your "hooch" would be taxed, which would preserve the black market for your "hooch". Furthermore in shipment, if liquor is not properly declared then it's also illegal because any significant quantity of alcohol is dangerous to ship, and therefore has to be declared (just as if you were to ship rubbing alcohol). Finally "At one remove" is ambiguous. So the bottom line is you wrote a sloppy sentence outlining your flawed thinking and were called on it. You've been backtracking ever since.
Try re-writing your screed and standing in line on Stossel's show the next time he has Ann Coulter as a guest punching bag. You can ask a question, right behind the similarly-minded misguided kids fighting for repealing laws against gay marriage.