Quote: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?

 

Wait, what? You specifically said that you were against all narcotic laws. Your words, not mine.  Why do you feel like it's up to the local government to determine how old someone has to be to drive a car? Smoke a cigarette? Drink a beer? Those three "rights" are given to people at different stages in life (16, 18. and 21). Why do you support local government setting those arbitrary ages for when "adulthood" begins? What if local government decided that people shouldn't be allowed to do meth until they were 30. Doing meth before 30 would be a criminal act, just like drinking before 21, smoking before 18, and driving before 16. Would you support that?

---