Why so? Explain please.
“Red herring - nobody here has said one should act contrary to court rulings.”
No scarlet fish here...the point is quite simple...I have to live with laws I don't approve of. Reality vs. the ideal and all that. Understand?
“Once again, you can explain yourself or be coy and let readers draw their conclusions as to why.”
I'm quite sure readers are able to understand without being led by the hand. So yes you are attempting to refute a nonexistent argument and even ask I explain that argument. No thanks.
“You've indicated what those principles might look like but not what they are. “The authority behind it” - what are the limits to the public’s authority?”
In the first instance the Declaration and U.S. Constitution sets limits by noting the rights that the Creator endowed men with. I think I've said this before here so why are asking?
That falls well short of your claimed “right to drug use.”
Why so? Explain please.
Simple: only someone with a doctor's recommendation can get medical marijuana.
Red herring - nobody here has said one should act contrary to court rulings.
No scarlet fish here...the point is quite simple...I have to live with laws I don't approve of.
That point is irrelevant to any matter under discussion - and thus is a red herring. Understand?
You're attempting to refute an argument that hasn't been made
Then why did you introduce the subject of accepting that decision as a law abiding person?
since you've missed the actual one.
Once again, you can explain yourself or be coy and let readers draw their conclusions as to why.
I'm quite sure readers are able to understand without being led by the hand.
What is the basis of your sureness, since 100% of readers who have posted an opinion don't understand?
So yes you are attempting to refute a nonexistent argument
I did my best to interpret your posts according to standard English. You can explain yourself, or be coy and let readers draw their conclusions as to why.
and even ask I explain that argument.
No, the argument I ask you to explain is whatever argument it is you're actually making, which is not clear from your posts.
You've indicated what those principles might look like but not what they are. “The authority behind it” - what are the limits to the public’s authority?
In the first instance the Declaration and U.S. Constitution sets limits by noting the rights that the Creator endowed men with.
One of those Creator-endowed rights is liberty - yet you assert that the public can deny the liberty to use marijuana. So where's the limit to the public’s authority?
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.