We should enjoy the liberty to pursue lawful and moral activity.
Simple enough eh?
More like a rusty bear trap.
Lawful is a matter of what a paper says and that changes all the time.
And moral? According to who?
Think of it like this... I should have the liberty to own a gun for self defense or any other lawful reason (maybe I am a collector).
I should NOT have the liberty to use a gun to do something immoral or unlawful. (I throw in the morality card because men seem to have the desire to create laws that are stupid. For instance in some places it's unlawful to have a gun to protect yourself yet I find that to be a stupid law)
A gun and Sudafed are different things.
What's immoral and unlawful about Sudafed?
Liberty and freedom have logical boundaries.
How is a guy smoking Meth on his front porch crossing any boundaries?
It should be common sense.
Right, he's minding his own bussiness and doing nothing wrong.
Yet I don't even think any of this applies to the topic.
It's an important cross topical anchor point. Think gun control. (you brought it up).
To be honest I wouldn't really have a problem being inconvenienced while buying Sudafed if I thought for one minute it was helping the METH problem.
Meth is still a legit drug prescribed for ADHD and obesity. Should a person who has a prescription be executed for giving a pill to someone else?
Should we go to Sudaland and burn the Sudafed fields with napalm?
Like we did the Coca and the Poppies?
Two plants that were just being plants....
My point is this.
I seem to see the right wing reacting to drugs the same way I see the left reacting to guns.
Or, put another way.
How can someone that would argue FOR my right to buy 6000 rounds of ammunition argue AGAINST my right to buy 6000 Sudafeds?
(and what if they're hollow points?)
(the ammunition not the pills)