Quote:It's hard to "keep up" when you keep tap dancing around the point.


Me: "Also, what about minors? Should I legally be allowed to sell meth to a 10 year old? 12? 18?"

You.......




So what do YOU support? Don't tap dance behind the veil of "local government". I'm asking what EricC85 thinks "individual liberty" entails. Should 20 year olds be allowed to drink alcohol? 18? 14? Should 20 year olds be allowed to use meth? 18? 14?


Who sets those ages? Why? Why does an 18 year old get more individual liberty than a 17 year old? Seems pretty arbitrary when you are suppose to be supporting individual liberty for all.


So tell me what EricC85 thinks.

There is a difference between adulthood and minors. Once a legal adult there should be no restrictions on consumption of narcotics I've made that clear. Laws protecting minors are no different than laws preventing minors from driving cars, owning property, or participating in the electoral process. For the 10000000000 I'm not an anarchist laws have a role to play In society. Government should be established to protect life and property. You want to argue where adulthood begins that's a whole discussion or do you want to argue what laws and at what level they're enforced? You like to make these huge hypotheticals to disenfranchise an argument.


I responds to your ridiculous question about 12 tear olds eating meth. Your suggesting decriminalization of narcotics is supporting minors using narcotics. That's not the case your once again misrepresent a stance. Decriminalization refers specifically to adults (currently adulthood is legally 18).


Now what other irrational assumptions would you like to make today?

---