And this raises a whole other issue which I haven't seen addressed by those who advocate legalization. Since our whole form of self-governance is based on rationality, the ability to offer consent, and clear-headedness, why would anyone advocate the "right" to abrogate self-governance unless they were haters of liberty or were just sorely ill-informed? That is why I associate Libertarianism with the Baathist Party of Iraq, which applauds the efforts of the L.P. Do people have a "right" to destroy their own ability to self-govern? If the inalienable right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness can be self-abrogated (as someone here claimed) then they would have no problems whatsoever with the consensual burning of the Bill of Rights. And who but an enemy of the Constitution (or the ill-informed) would approve of that?
I don't think the Libertarians are all drugies, but I do think they have a strong drug using wing.
If the inalienable right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness can be self-abrogated (as someone here claimed) --- blab, blab. --
Sheer bull. You can't name the 'someone' or show us your argument against, cause the claim, as you stated it, doesn't exist.
Obviously you favor the re-introduction of Prohibition, then. Niquil can cause me to be woozy for some hours. I know I'm not clear headed when I haven't had enough sleep. How much are you willing to get into my life and run it? Some posts ago, I asked you for your definition of liberty. Thus far, you've declined to articulate one. Why?