[ConservingFreedom]

I would prefer to protect liberty for those who produce over those who ultimately cause productive liberty seekers harm.

If you propose to protect liberty for those who produce by continuing our current drug bans, I'd note the following:

• Our current drug bans do much to motivate harms to productive liberty seekers, namely theft, by increasing the cost of drugs to users - and to increase harms generally by increasing the resources available (from drug-selling) to criminals.
• If we're going to ban for ALL adults those things that may increase SOME adults' propensity to do harm, that's a long slippery slope whose destination I suspect you may not care for.

[jurroppi1]

It was more of a general comment about how leaning the other direction will have consequences as well, in some cases (I suspect a fair number of them) direct consequences that stifle the liberties of functional productive individuals who also crave liberty.

I’m not only commenting on the laws WRT the WOD, but laws in general all over the place. You keep alluding to the WOD and its’ concomitant laws and singling that out, but the application goes to other circumstances as well.

I am merely stating that preserving the right to be listless and exist in a stupor (depending on how heavily stupefied or intoxicated one deigns to make themselves) generally leads to other less than desirable behaviors. People destined to be addicted or listless tend to find ways to continue the lifestyle, which usually means polite society suffers somehow.

I suppose if we go back to public shunning and stocks and all that, we could just be a free society that metes out justice as we see fit too. You constrain someones’ liberties, yours get constrained equally or worse. There will always be a judge somewhere; that judge may not agree with your perceptions or indications (unless we just go full-on barbarian).