Originally Posted by temmi
I have given this a lot of thought.

This crap is a poison with no useful purpose.

Should we allow a deadly poison to be sold with the expression purpose of human consummation?

I say no.


Snake

You sound a lot like the gun grabbers.

"A handgun has no useful purpose other than to kill people. Should we allow deadly weapons to be sold with the express purpose of killing people? I say no."

When your first impulse is to say, "Should we allow..." you're already on the side of tyranny and against the side of liberty. If you're interested in liberty, then that first impulse would be to say, "What just power has the government to..."

For example, "What just power has the government to control what individuals put into their own bodies?"

And yes, I know handguns have useful purposes other than killing people. So do most drugs, even illegal ones. But you know about the positive uses of guns, and you don't know--or perhaps don't care to know--about the positive uses of narcotics; so you're acting from emotion instead of information...which is why I compared you to the gun grabbers, since that's precisely what they do as well.

All that is beside the real point, though. Even if you were to identify a drug that truly had absolutely no possible positive purpose, "Should we allow..." would still be the response of tyranny.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." --Lysander Spooner, 1867