Sounds a lot better than a small body of select individuals like the supreme court.
But much worse than letting adults decide for themselves. (Why did you drag in this red herring--when did I ever support letting the Supreme Court decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?)
I'm sure you have a basis for your feelings that the constitution entitles us to do drugs.
The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs.
"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink?"
Laws exist in virtually every state and municipality that prohibit public drunkedness,DUII,and drinking in public.
The public gets to say what happens on its property. If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink at home?
"Whereas instinct and intuitions are unbiased? Good grief."
Never said they were unbiased.
Then there is no support for your claim that "Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings."
"We have no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements."
Who is we? Supreme court,vote of American people,city councils,state goverment,elected officials?
All of the above.
Cite constitutional provisions-
The Constitution grants the federal government no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements. As for the rest, it's fundamental ethics---you don't punish someone for what they MIGHT do.
"I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?"
Conservatives do generally argue with sound facts
And the sound facts do not support restricting adults' freedom to use drugs.
but in this particular case I feel in spite of the information you cite,somehow you end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization.
So what? Should I stop wearing pants because liberals wear them?
"Alcohol can kill the user in a single evening."
Good point-my obvious reply would be narcotics can kill you in a single minute.Different animal all together.
No, that does NOT make them "different altogether." Slow-acting poisons and fast-acting poisons are both poisons.
"Would you personally be willing to operate the first Heroin store yourself?
"Yes (although I don't think I'm cut out for retail)."
after the first 14 year old girl OD's on your good,pure dope,tell me what you will tell her mother when she comes in to let you know the dope you sold to John ended up in Jill's body.Even though you are just like an alcohol store and can't control where it all goes,will you feel good about selling your product?
How would I feel about selling John a bottle of booze that killed Jill? How would I feel about selling John a kitchen knife that killed Jill? What does any of that have to do with whether the product should be legal?
"Because you're driving on public roads. That officer has no right to stop you driving drunk on your own property."
What difference does that make
The public gets to say what happens on its property, just like I get to say what happens on my property.
"Wanting more and more" is not what causes most ODs. How often do prescription drug addicts have ODs?"
Didn't you cite facts that pointed out aspirin causes more OD's than narcotics?
No---and I doubt that's true on a per-user basis.
Tolerance sets in and it's hard to know how fast.
That's utter nonsense---tolerance does not grow appreciably during the course of a single drug-use episode, but builds over multiple episodes.
"Then why don't you support it? Alcohol has destroyed many lives."
Chuckling-Because I am biased admittedly,I enjoy a beer now and again.
I'd applaud your honesty---but I'm too disgusted by your chuckling over your supporting the caging of non-rights-violating adults on the basis of your biases.
My real response would be that I think alcohol and narcotics are completely different animals.
You have yet to produce evidence that supports that claim.