[Texaggie79]

Right, the constitution leaves the power of excluding activities or persons that impose danger upon their neighbors to the states. The founders supported such state laws. Witchcraft, sodomy, ect.

Why your blind dedication to drugs makes you so blind to that fact, I do not know.

[MileHi]

Witchcraft,

A great example, really. An imagined danger. People were killed but since "most good citizens" supported it, it was ok, right.

That really is a perfect analogy.

[tpaine]

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28 276 - ta79 -

As has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, -- the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES refered to above are outlined in our constitution, and are not to be decreed by the whims of a moralizing majority.
293 tpaine

Right, the constitution leaves the power of excluding activities or persons that impose danger upon their neighbors to the states. The founders supported such state laws. Witchcraft, sodomy, ect.

You are unable to specify the 'danger' in private acts of 'drug' use. -- or in witchcraft, sodomy, etc. -- You never have. -- Until you do, your 'argument' is specious, at best.

Why your blind dedication to drugs makes you so blind to that fact, I do not know.

Your statement is dishonest, - as you know full well that I have no such dedication to 'drugs'.
My arguments are dedicated to constitutional freedoms & always have been. -- You dedicate yours to communitarian rule.