No, not them. We would be defending their First Amendment right to free speech.
But you say you're not defending pot. Well then, what are you defending? Is there some fundamental, constitutional "right" to smoke pot? If so, then how can you be willing, nay eager, to let individual states take away that "right"?
If we're going to keep alcohol legal, why do you draw the line at making pot legal? Why not other drugs, some of which have been claimed to be even safer than alcohol?
Maybe I guess you can say I'm defending pot. When you have all these idiot government types going on about how "marijuana causes terrorism" and "pot is by far the biggest danger to our youth", and my personal favorite "pot will cause you to take you fathers unsecured gun out of his desk and shoot your best friend", then maybe I suppose I am defending it. I stand corrected. I just get tired of idiots with funny screennames coming onto these threads and accusing everybody who doesn't fall for the anti-pot propoganda of being a pot-smoker themselves (You are not one of these idiots, for the record).
If we're going to keep alcohol legal, why do you draw the line at making pot legal? Why not other drugs, some of which have been claimed to be even safer than alcohol?
Sure, if they're safer than alcohol, legalize them too, though I, for one, do not buy the arguments that heroin and the like are.
No, nor to wear plaid shirts. There are, however, natural rights to do both.