"I thought it was liberals who held that "sympathy" trumps rights, such as sympathy for the parents of a young person who might end up dead as a result of the perils of handguns."
No,sympathy does not trump rights,but laws of this country must be rooted in common sense.Narcotics kill far more people than guns.Facilitating personal freedoms is obviously a good intention,but lets do it without ending up with millions of addicts and casualties.
"As I say in post 61, the same sort of system that disperses the deadly addictive drug alcohol."
That would mean state control as well as private companys promoting use,and producing the product.You talk about citizens rights to be free from state controls in one sentence,and then advocate state controls in the next.
laws of this country must be rooted in common sense. Narcotics kill far more people than guns.Provide evidence for your claim.
Then explain why, with 500,000 traffic deaths per year, "common sense" doesn't dictate that we ban cars.
That would mean state control as well as private companys promoting use,
If a ban on advertising were the cost of legalizing drugs, I'd accept it; politics is the art of the possible.
and producing the product.
What's wrong with that?
You talk about citizens rights to be free from state controls in one sentence,and then advocate state controls in the next.
I advocate a LESSENING of state controls. As I said, "More freedom is better than less. Respect for freedom does not obligate one to make the best an enemy of the good."