The question has never been “personal freedom” but rather the overthrow of the moral codes of society at large whether it be homosexuality, pedophilia, drug use or abortion so that the trajectory is from private vice to public acceptance and the branding of those who object as “intolerant”.
So there may be some Woody willing to sit in his living room but they won’t stay there.
“If Woody sits in his living room alone when he inhales, how is he affecting any body other than his?”
The same argument is made for abortion.
Personal freedom encompasses using alcohol or any other mind-altering drug and inflicting on oneself the consequent harm. "Personal freedom" to do only what the government deems nonharmful is no freedom at all.
The question has never been “personal freedom”
Then why did you bring it up, artless dodger?
but rather the overthrow of the moral codes of society at large
56% Favor Legalizing, Regulating Marijuana
If Woody sits in his living room alone when he inhales, how is he affecting any body other than his?
So there may be some Woody willing to sit in his living room but they won’t stay there.
If he leaves, how will he affect any body other than his?
The same argument is made for abortion.
ADD? We covered this already:
The vital difference there is that abortion by definition involves another person's body.
Not by the abortionist definition.
What are you, a relativist? They're wrong
Sure they’re wrong