Gosh, I don't doubt you for a moment.
It is pretty much as I expected. (Which is why I deliberately drew you out)
You quote from a private moralist 17th-Century argument against Tobacco, which was adopted by Franklin Adams into a Christian Libertarian 20th-Century argument against Murderous Prohibition.
I have no problem with it.
Frankly, I ADORE it.
The 17th-Century Source makes the 20th-Century Poem all the more trenchant, poignant, and funnier.
The Christian argument against "tobacco" is little better than Christians arguing against Fatty Foods... it's Pharisaical.
But the fact that 17th-Century Pharisaical Poetry was adopted into a 20th-Century critique against Murderous Prohibition... that is rich, and lively, and tempestously ironic.
It is full-orbed humor, of the delicious sort. A credit to Mr. Adams.
As to the rest of your reply ... Y-A-W-N ... same old same old boring, hubris filled post. You never change. :-)
No, but I do appreciate a rich literary snack, of the finest Irony.
Thanks for indulging me.
I just read your bullet points about establishing "objective facts" and a social contract. Man, I want to demolish that right now, but I'll wait until you reply to my first demolition of your points.
I'm going to convert you back to Christianity yet, OP. You don't need that old bat Ayn Rand in your life, believe me...