[Lucky Dog]

You want to play games with rhetoric, - expect it to be interpreted rhetorically.

It appears you are not interested in a civilized exchange or informative debate.

…How weird. Do you really think your BS "exposition" clarified anything?

Apparently, your intellectual prowess is exceeded only by your command of vocabulary.

Admit it, -- the WOD's "discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs"; -- at the cost of ~losing~ the "societal value" of our Constitutional rule of law..

See the previous comment…

You got it kiddo. -- No level of government in the USA has ever been delegated a 'power to prohibit'.. Prohibitions deprive us of our rights to life, liberty or property because they violate due process of law. [see the 14th]

Either you do not understand that the power to legislate or adjudicate is, by definition, the power to prohibit, or, oh, wait… see the previous comment…

The power to regulate commerce "among the several States" does not include the power to prohibit it..

Either you do not understand that the power to regulate is, by definition, the power to prohibit, or, oh, wait…see the previous comment…

The police power to reasonably regulate drugs, booze, guns, etc, -- does not include the power to prohibit them.

Either you do not understand that the power to regulate is, by definition, the power to prohibit, or, oh, wait…see the previous comment…

There is no constitutional "base" to prohibit 'dangerous' items like booze, guns & drugs, no matter how flowery your rhetoric becomes. Get a grip.

Either you do not understand that the power to regulate, legislate or adjudicate is, by definition, the power to prohibit, or, oh, wait…see the previous comment…

I trust that the previous response has been insulting enough to satisfy your juvenile sensibilities. Consequently, unless you wish to engage in reasoned discourse, I suggest a cessation of this exchange.

[tpaine]

unless you wish to engage in reasoned discourse,

What's 'reasoned' about your discourse insisting that our governments have a "power to prohibit"?
-- Or that libertarians must support limiting the liberties of fellow citizens to engage in destructive behavior?

You claimed earlier to be a "practical libertarian". -- Whereas everything you advocate is straight from the communitarian, 'majority rules' playbook.

Feel free to continue posting their rhetoric, -- as I will feel free to point out the flaws in your anti-constitutional position.