There seems to be no acknowledgment by either of you in your exchanges that the vast difference of opinion should not be personal. By that I am not belittling the slights and bombs, but instead trying to point out that this issue has always been central to the concepts of J. S. Mill and those that oppose him. Mill concluded his famous
On Liberty wherein he outlines his politcal concepts of application of a specific form of the Non-Aggression Single Principle, with a practical example chapter very much related to Drug sales. It was his chief method of explaining his percieved practicality and suitibility of his concept.
Critics subsiquently focused there as well.
Adherents to either side of issues like government in drug regulation have tended to conform and lean toward the politcal philosopies that most closely justify their opinions. (not there conduct, as that is not the issue)
Mush of the opinion on this issue seperate from you both, centers around the Federal role, especaily as it relates to other Bill of Rights issues that get trampled and that gets short shift in looking at it from the Order vs. Liberty debate alone.
Niether of you are taking postitions anyless polarized on this than have been taken for 150 years and ascribing motives keeps the bulk of us from seeing the worthy points each of you present.
I have seen others with a similar frustration to tpaine's regarding the questions of on-thread conduct, so I know they are sincere. In the type of debate you two like and are aclimated to, the restrictions would seem to need concrete "parlimentary" words that can't be uttered. I get the impression that site management (and here I fall in with them) feel that they will "know it when they see it" and just like to keep the heat down. All I can suggest is what seems to work for some others and to respond to the worded arguement of the other and not the poster.
Good luck to you both.