[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Here’s a good example of theoretical position I hold based on personal liberty. I believe ex cons should not be denied their second amendment rights. If they’re a danger to society, they shouldn’t be out of prison and getting a gun won’t be difficult for them anyway. If they’re not a danger, they’ve payed their debt, why can’t they protect themselves.

Let's flip your so-called 'personal liberty' on it's head.

Because some ex-cons can't be trusted with a gun, you would deny all of them access to a firearm.

Similarly, because some people can't handle a particular drug, everyone should be denied access.

IOW, you want to ban the 'thing' because you believe that it is the 'thing' that drives the behavior of the person.

I'm just the opposite. I believe we should hold people responsible for their actions. It doesn't matter to me if someone uses alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. in the privacy of their own homes as long as their use causes no harm to someone else. If this use causes harm, then they should be held personally responsible for the harm they cause.

If someone drives while intoxicated on alcohol and kills someone else, the person killed no more or less dead than if the driver was intoxicated on marijuana, heroin, barbiturates, or cough syrup.

You believe that by passing a law against a 'thing' you will control society's behavior to an extent that these laws will reduce the danger caused by a 'person'.

This is the exact same attitude shown by the Prohibitionists who championed the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment. They believed that by banning alcohol from society, society would become a better place to live. In reality, it became a worse place to live. Not only did it give rise to organized crime, but the government also expanded its sphere of power and influence.

What you fail to recognize is that your controls will not prevent or reduce harm on society because, like the criminal who wants a gun to rob or kill, people will get the 'thing' they want regardless of what the laws say.

Like gun control laws, drug control laws only penalize otherwise law-abiding citizens who know how to use a 'thing' responsibly.

[Morpheus2009]

Exactly, and that’s the bigger problem than the drugs themselves, we really don’t hold people accountable for their actions, but what’s more disturbing is that it kinds of treats people as if they aren’t of any particularly great value. If someone is treated as incapable by the law, isn’t that prejudiced?