Paging the dem writers at The West Wing: here's a new sub-story for an episode denigrating the flyover territories.... no wait...
Paging Sixty Minutes and 20-20: here's another story to bury.
PS: any Libertarians want to argue the war on drugs at this stage?
Sure, Officer Doofy! What's your argument?
They'd support the "right" of people to develop, manufacture, transport, market, sell, and consume any drug in any quantity to anyone at any time for any reason, even unto death.
It doesn't even have to involve the abrogation of the inalienable right to life; even a drug which thwarts free will, or cripples personal responsibility, or hinders the ability to self-defense, to think and act rationally, to sit on a jury, to study and debate issues of public policy, and to vote. They themselves may not be into such evils, but such evils are okay for other people to endure. Such is the hallmark of moral-liberalism and PC moral-cowardice.
What, are you implying that if she had only been drunk, instead of drunk, and on ecstacy that she would have done the right thing and taken him to a hospital?
Driving while impared is illegal and should remain illegal.
I don't understand what you are referring to. Perhaps you would like to restate your arguement if you have one?
Given that many who push for the drug war regard the drug-user as a "victim" and unaccountable for their actions under intoxication, yes.
The libertarian viewpoint would be that drugs are legal to consume, but intoxication offers no immunity from prosecution for anything someone does while willfully intoxicated.
Also, it should be noted that many here aren't opposed to all drug laws, but rather to the unconstitutionally overreaching enforcement thereof.