Just because I believe it's a "good outcome" for the Feds to be able to mandate across the board compliance w/, f'rinstance, environmental regulations(I'm clearly speaking in the hypothetical here) am I OK w/ the possible ramifications vis a vis, say, drug laws? WTF ARE my first principles?

GG has me thinking about this. Consequently, I couldn't care less whether GG is a libertarian, or a liberal, or what. I enjoy reading his stuff because I like the way he thinks. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, in fact, I'd appreciate the opportunity to argue with him some day.

In the meantime, I'll listen, and learn, and try not to be too abusive when people don't adress my pet topic, or come too close to goring my sacred cow.

I think you have hit the nail on the head, what indeed are our first principles?

My own first principle is that we are the owners of our own bodies. This is why I'm an adamant pro choicer and also why I'm equally adamant about being anti drug war. This first principle also leads me to be a supporter of the right to die as you please and of course a supporter of the right of homosexuals to marry whomever they like.

In all cases the first principle is ownership, if you own something you are free to do with it as you please unless or until you violate the rights of another.

Anti pollution laws are about violating the rights of others, the right to breathe clean air, drink clean water and live in a (relatively anyway) unpolluted environment.

The reason I scream so much about drug laws is that they violate my first principle and are wildly discriminatory.

I could actually support a total and complete ban on all recreational drugs were it to include alcohol, on the theory that mental impairment can cause one to violate the rights of others (such as in the case of drunk driving).

That the ban on recreational drugs does not include alcohol makes it pellucidly clear that the purpose of the ban has nothing to do with protecting the rights of others to be free from having their rights violated.

I know that many here get really insulted when I predict how they are going to react. As I have already stated several times here, I've been debating drug policy online for well nigh twenty years now, a couple of hundred thousand posts worth. My experience in doing this is why I can predict how people will react, I've seen it all tens of thousands of times by now.

Another reaction that I can predict as accurately as I can predict the results of dropping an anvil on your foot is that if I were to advocate for the return of alcohol prohibition I would be overwhelmed with angry and vituperative posts making exactly all the same arguments I make about other drugs. Lurkers would be crawling out of the woodwork to curse, defame and defile me. I know this because that too has happened to me thousands of times when I have made just that argument.

This is why I know that people really do understand the points I'm making but are almost pathologically reluctant to admit that they are true in the case of drugs other than alcohol.

My first principle, ownership of our own bodies, is what drives me to the stance I take and also to the vigor with which I pursue it.The other body ownership issues, primarily abortion, have plenty of advocates. The drug issue, not so many.

Anyway, I hope this post will clarify a bit what I'm doing and why I'm doing it and I want to thank bamage for helping me realize how I might possibly explain my bete noir.

I wish you all a very happy Winter Solstice, Christmas or whatever.