[MrLeRoy]

What I defend is the RIGHT to use. I don't defend the use and promotion of Marxist literature, but I do defend the right to publish and read it.

Reading material is one thing, ingesting it is quite another.

Irrelevant to the point of my analogy: defending the right to do X is not defending doing X.

instead of showing greater concern about the root cause of why so many people need to distort their realities and/or run away from their problems

Only liberals think that's any of government's business.

Guess I just proved your opinion incorrect.

No, more like I just proved you a liberal.

So you've abandoned your attempts to simultaneously defend the legality of alcohol and the illegality of marijuana?

I have no problem with stating, over and over again, I agree with the legality of alcohol, with restrictions, and the illegality of narcotics/weed.

What you do have a problem with is providing a rational defense of this position---which explains why in post 104 you bailed out of your failed attempt to do so.

[nicmarlo]

I am not a liberal, I'm just not a libertarian and would never want to be, mostly because of their stands on drugs.

I have no problem defending my positions, but I'm not a scientist or doctor. Sometimes, all it takes is common sense to understand why a government must take action to protect innocents in society, obviously, you lack the commen sense necessary to understand why people should not have a RIGHT to take substances, for fun, which alters their mental/emotional states and, by so doing, affects and effects those around them, friends or strangers, financially, emotionally, and otherwise.