When my mom discovered cleat marks along my spine, she wrote a note forbidding me to play. (Wide receiver). Frankly, I didn't mind since being in the marching band was more than enough exercise for me.

Reminds me of Kostas Portikalos' comment." Apple or orange, we both just fruit."

I lay my sword at the feet of the master.

Well said. I am not denying that there is a significant conflict of rights at play here: the rights of choice being matched up against the rights to be free of coercion. I'm also not saying that there is a cut-and-dried solution through law. Your suggestion of education and responsibility are the ideas I also would endorse, but they only work on a population that is interested in their own welfare. Laws are generally implemented for the weakest - not the strongest - and I think you would agree. The problem in this case is that the weakness of those weakest members is a significant threat not only to themselves but to others. It is an issue where unfortunately the irresponsibility of a few can have far-reaching effects on many who are innocent. So who's rights take precedence? There probably will not be an answer which satisfies both parties.

Hillary will say she's Chinese if she's talking to a Chinese audience. She'll drop a tear when describing the struggle of her grandfather when coming to America. When that story is challenged, she would say she made a mistake like she did when she claimed to be under sniper fire. Then "What difference does it make" before the main stream media gives her a pass.

The question is not about the implied source of the law, but whether or not the principle is sound. The argument being forwarded is that the law is invalid simply because of the purported source - without actually examining the merit of the law in the first place! That's like saying because the messenger is ugly we're going to ignore the message entirely. It doesn't follow from a logical standpoint.

I wholly agree with you that sentencing in today's age has become too lenient. But having seen the effects of domestic violence - of which nearly all is the result of alcohol - I can't simply agree to the notion that it is in society's best interest to just deal with the effects - especially when the effects are multi-generational.

"So you're ok with wholesale infringement of people's rights?"

Contrary to what you may surmise, I absolutely reject the notion that government can issue permits to engage in commerce. Yes, you can choose to drink. You can make your own moonshine if you choose. The question is where, when, and how much to drink before the effects of that alcohol render you incapable of making sound decisions. Once you are no longer capable of making sound decisions, you - by virtue of inebriation - give up your right of self-determination. Laws limiting alcohol consumption don't infringe on your rights by telling you not to drink - they warn you that if you do, you may lose your rights, and second that you then become a danger to others. Rights exist because we are conscious, but they are maintained only by self-discipline and judgement. If we intentionally disregard and override our self-determination to place it in the hands of a third-party, we intentionally void our claim to rights until such a time as we regain our senses.

"You're content to punish the masses for what a few do rather than punish the ones that do it?"

If I pass a law that prohibits people from jumping off bridges onto the rocks below, am I really infringing on their right to choose to jump? Not in the slightest. I'm merely trying to inform them that the repercussions for such are very negative. You seem to look at all laws as infringements on rights rather than warnings about negative repercussions. While there certainly are examples of laws that do penalize what should be unrestricted behaviors, I've never seen a right to intoxication being validated in either the Bill of Rights or a modern courtroom. I have, however, seen the results of broken homes and abuse cause by alcoholism - of people abusing their choices, intentionally inhibiting their self-control, and then taking that out on others through force. Should those people be individually punished? Absolutely. But unless the law applies equally to all, I can't very well claim just laws.

You do present a valid question about how far society can go in proscribing human behaviors - even behaviors acknowledged to be self-destructive. So as a follow-up question, do you believe society has a responsibility to warn of self-destructive behaviors through proscribed law, or should society merely suffer the consequences and give in to the perception of unlimited application of choice?

"You were against the repeal of Prohibition even though it proved completely ineffective at preventing the sale of alcohol and led to the rise of modern organized crime?"

I said nothing of the sort and would ask that you not put words in my mouth. Organized crime has existed from time immemorial and traffics in the sorts of goods that society has criminalized for whatever reason. I would note that slavery and human trafficking is greater now than it has ever been. Should we attribute its rise to the victory by the North in the Civil War? Or should we more properly attribute it to the desires of some to seek material wealth using force and coercion?

"Or are you just an idiot that likes to ask ridiculous questions with the insinuation that some other person might not be able to hold a more nuanced position than you merely because you cannot.?"

-1. I ask questions to cause people to check their premises - not to insinuate or burden with nuance. You are certainly welcome to challenge my assertions. I will see little reason to revise them unless there is a sound argument to do so. When you do, however, you will gain more traction by sticking to assertions backed up by empirical evidence and persuasive argument rather than vitriol.

I just reviewed, and I agree that I used straw man inappropriately. Thanks for that catch. But my argument was not a straw man in either case. It was an examination of the precedent based on its conclusion. I simply asked if the conclusion was not only a rational outcome of the premise, but one that was argued as being the desired course of action. If it is rational and desired, logic is confirmed to be valid but not necessarily sound. If it is rational but not desired, one must then check ones' premises.

The last paragraph was in reference to the original assertion that "To be fair these laws have been on the books for christian churches for years." I simply assert that to call into claim the source of rationale is not nearly as solid as challenging the validity of the rationale itself.

"They are the Christian version of Sharia."

If you equate the two, you have no comprehension of Sharia. I met a family once in Cyprus who was from Iran about twenty years ago. They were seeking religious asylum in Canada to escape from Sharia. The woman told me of a day she had gone outside with makeup on and two boys not more than 12 had rode up to her on bicycles and slashed her face with razor blades held between their knuckles before they rode off. I don't see Christians doing that, do you?