You said; --- There's nothing about drug laws that go against the Constitution. There's nothing about drug laws that go against the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
How bout the intent to preserve life, liberty and property? The prohibition of alcohol [ a 'taking' of property] was temporarally accepted as constitutional, by amendment. Then sanity prevailed -- NO ONE has ever attempted to prohibit 'drugs' by amendment, for good constitutional reasons.
States are empowered to 'regulate' the PUBLIC use & sale of property. They do not have the power to ban ANY type of property.
This belief is an absurd house of cards and it's been my pleasure to demolish it.
Dream on with your absurd boasts, -- they match your arguments. - #33 -
I made my point clearly. Arguing about individual batches of words taken out of their larger context is a fool's game. (As we've seen...)
However, we've both addressed the larger context. I don't expect to change your mind and I'm sure you don't expect to change mind. My main purpose here is to have fun, state my case plainly (a case which, as the essay at the head of this thread makes clear, is only peripherally related to the WOD) and to expose as best I can how utterly vacuous the drug promotion arguments are, and how mean-spirited, disconnected and self-serving drug promoters are (at best) and how evil and dangerous to conservative America drug promoters are (at worst).
I appreciate the help. Mark W.