No, but how do you explain state laws on public attire (i.e. I can't run around naked through the streets)?
According to your standard a child should look better upon the law-abiding alcoholic than the person that exceeds the speed limit.
Actually, public intoxication is illegal in most states. So the only legal activity they would see is a guy buying a beer or hard liquor. I don't see a problem with that.
Having drugs be illegal does several things. First, it makes the current users sneek around so I dont have to see it. 306
I've asked you three times how you were harmed by seeing a person on drugs. 308
Personally, it is offending, 309
So anything that offends you should be against the law?310
No, but
But what? But implies an exception. Here's the exception...
but how do you explain state laws on public attire (i.e. I can't run around naked through the streets)?
Your argument is that because public nudity offends some people and therefore outlawed that other things that offend you should also be against the law?
According to your standard a child should look better upon the law-abiding alcoholic than the person that exceeds the speed limit. 310
Actually, public intoxication is illegal in most states. So the only legal activity they would see is a guy buying a beer or hard liquor. I don't see a problem with that.
You're obfuscating. Nothing new. But I'll take your forthcoming-word on it that you weren't obfuscating. According to you it is better for a child to look up to a law-abiding alcoholic than a person that exceeds the speed limit. According to your non-obfuscating response you wrote, "I don't see a problem with that." My question was about a law-abiding alcoholic which obviously means when he is drunk in public he must be in a state that hasn't outlawed public intoxication. And since we both know you weren't obfuscating it means you answered the question I asked and you did not respond to a question that you may have implied that I asked.