[robertpaulsen]

Just trying to understand Libertarian thinking. But I think it goes something like:

Person A smoking MJ does not harm anyone else. If person B is harmed by person A while smoking MJ, punish person A for the action, not the smoking. How about that?

If that's the rationale, then how do we justify making it illegal to: go 95 in a school zone, shoot at someone and miss, drink and drive, let my pit bulls roam free, build a large bomb, or put a mine field in my front yard. What's wrong with attempted robbery (or attempted anything)? Why were people so bent out of shape when Michael Jackson hung the baby over the balcony? Hell, he should be allowed to juggle three of them.

With that thinking, do I qualify for honorary Libertarian?

[Wolfie]

Potential harm to others in those scenarios is taken into account, no doubt. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be a factor. I just happen to believe that, as with alcohol, the potential harm to others from marijuana use (not smoking and driving, not smoking and flying, not smoking and giving it to a little kid, just use) does NOT warrant laws against its use. Just as I would say that the potential harm from someone drunk off his ass on Budweiser does not warrant Alcohol Prohibition.

Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree