[dirtboy]

I want to be protected from people who think it’s okay to ingest mind-altering substances, from people with dulled or deluded senses from using mind-altering substances, just for fun.

And gun-grabbers want to be protected from shootings, and non-smokers from secondhand smoke, and the food police want to protect us from fatty foods, and [insert your personal protection desire here]. The point is, you have a right to be protected from someone causing you harm. You do not have the right to insist on a carte-blanche prohibition because they MIGHT do something - that is the attitude of a liberal - penalizing the possibility of misconduct, not misconduct itself. So ingesting pot at home is the same as ingesting booze at home, and they should become criminal only upon additional conduct that endangers others. Likewise with guns - they only become a problem when used in an unsafe, illegal manner.

[nicmarlo]

The Constitution affords us the right to bear arms; it does not afford each person the right to ingest substances which WILL and DOES harm others in society and society itself.

[Wolfie]

In the absence of any real common sense on the issue, at least in the U.S., I applaud the folks who suffer from the "if it might hurt me, it must be made illegal" mentality. They're achieving more and more success, as evidenced by the ever expanding smoking bans, and the advent of cops busting drinkers in bars. I figure the more resources used to police everybody else, the less left over to hassle me.

[AUgrad]

ingesting pot at home is the same as ingesting booze at home, and they should become criminal only upon additional conduct that endangers others.

Good point.