Replies

Well, I oppose it because I believe that society can handle it being legal.

I know you want to make this a "It's my damn body, I'll do what I want." issue, but that only goes as far as the FED. When it get's down to the state level, communities can set limits on the risks they are willing to take. If they don't like the risk of alcohol, they can ban it. Many counties do. And if you don't like it, you can leave.

When it get's down to the state level, communities can set limits on the risks they are willing to take.

All things are Ok if they are done on the state level. It's OK to use heroin or not, depending on what the state says. Or murder for that matter. Fill in the blank.

I know you want to make this a "It's my damn body, I'll do what I want." issue, but that only goes as far as the FED.

Thus, you now admit that our constitution protects us from federal efforts to ban substances? How inconsistant can you get? Just a few posts ago you were defending the federal narcotics acts.

When it get's down to the state level, communities can set limits on the risks they are willing to take. If they don't like the risk of alcohol, they can ban it. Many counties do.

All levels of government can constitutionally 'regulate', within reason, the public use & sale.
-- As you admit above, outright prohibitions are unconstitutional without amendments.

Well, I oppose it because I believe that society can handle it being legal. I know you want to make this a "It's my damn body, I'll do what I want." issue,

Not necessarily. I just like things to be kept in the proper context. Being opposed to it because you believe that society can handle it is not the same as being opposed to it because society accepts it. Somewhere we need to make a determination as to which aspects of our lives are appropriate to defer to society, which are appropriate to defer to government, and which are best left to us as individuals. We find ourselves in our current situation because we were convinced that individually, or collectively as a society we were unable to handle it, and that goverment could do it better. Now it's been suggested that perhaps we might have been wrong about that. One of the implications of that proposal is that it will once again become the responsibility of society and individuals to handle it, and it's hard to imagine that happening because we've never seen it. If that is to be sufficient reason to oppose even the attempt, then once government has assumed a given responsibility for and authority over us for a sufficient amount of time, it is theirs forever.