It seems like they could say the same thing about eating unhealthful foods, things like drinking Mtn Dew. You could also say it about buying luxury goods when you have no money or wealth to cover a bump in the road. If we say you've lost all reason because you do something stupid, then the whole human race has lost its reason.

The drugs that are proscribed are arbitrary, not at all related to level of addictivenss, how much they affect judgment, or how bad they are for health. It's an accident of history that caffeine is not banned but khat is.

Even if we accepted the illegal drugs really do cause you to lose all reasons, the way we carry out the drug war is not a humane way to deal with people who have lost their mind.

Tom Clancy's "Clear and Present Danger" illustrates the mind set. Short version: everyone who has ever touched drugs (1) has lost his reason and (2) is a victim whether he knows it or not. And his assessment of his own situation doesn't matter. In short, the drug warriors don't consider you to have agency once you decide to partake even a little.

I am open to the proposition that there is a slight degree of truth to this assessment in the case of some of the "hardest" drugs when used to the point of addiction. But even then I trust the addict to govern his own life more than I trust the State to make decisions for him.

Yes. I wonder the mental gymnastics they must go through to convince themselves they're somehow the good guys.

Some groups simply can't accept justice and will have to be defied rather than reasoned with. Most bureaucrats are among them. Drug enforcers certainly are -- and they've forced enough innocent lives to be wasted behind bars that they're comparable to the Holocaust and need a Nuremberg style ending.

A Libertarian fix to the government spending problem would be painful in the short run, but totally cool in the long run. I would be willing to undergo the pain if it was the right thing to do, BUT most people would not think that way and that makes it hard for the Libertarians to win this time

The 1929 and 2008 crashes lasted decades because of government "stimulus". The 1919 crash was hardly noticed because President Harding did the right thing -- he cut federal spending. Johnson would do the same.

And his running mate?

Gary Johnson may be a self-proclaimed Libertarian, but he certainly is no Objectivist! I don't think he has a belief system as he flip flops on global warming and such. He is not someone I would vote for.

Actually, it's not my business who you vote for or even why. I am passionate about anyone but Hillary. I'd vote for a chimpanzee rather than her if that was the only choice I had.

That may be true in a reasonably honest Washington, but by your standards we might as well turn over congress to the Mafia. Almost everything Clinton has "accomplished" has been through coercion, and coercion is not always physical.

"people will not be so trusting of government to fix their problems."
Sometimes people learn but sometimes history repeats itself or at least rhymes.

I think taxes will rise in either case b/c we're funding the gov't on debt and we can't seem to cut spending. Mainstream politicians all say the era of big gov't is over, but they can't/don't pull it off.
I actually want a liberal (depending on what that means) Supreme Court and open borders. I think people do great things for one another with gov't leaves them alone.
Regarding regulation, I want less regulation provided it doesn't lead to more litigiousness. Clinton knows her way around gov't (for better and worse), so she's better equipped to handle this balance.

We’re “forced” into an election where we “must” choose the lesser of two evils? Too bad I didn’t realize that when I voted for Gary Johnson last Sunday. And I had no idea I was voting against the Constitution when I voted for Gary Johnson over Trump. Let’s see, Gary Johnson = uphold Constitution, Donald Trump = ignore Constitution. However, a vote for Gary Johnson = oppose Constitution, while a vote for Donald Trump = uphold Constitution. Makes perfect sense to me now.

We’re debating this because many Trump supporters in the Gulch are criticizing and denouncing those of us voting for Gary Johnson, on the basis of arguments that do not stand up to scrutiny.

Why are we debating this? It's just picking away at a trifle. The fact of the matter is that Hillary must not win.

You are one mixed-up person.
Your reasons aren't even reasons.
You are aware of what a Clinton presidency will be are you not? Nothing you mentioned dealt with the consequences of, a liberal Supreme Court, open borders, higher taxes, more regulations which will keep businesses from operating efficiently, new businesses from opening which will lead to greater unemployment. More corporations leaving the country, creating still more unemployment , and more negative things than I have the patience to write about.

I look at it this way. A vote for Johnson over Trump is a vote against the Constitution. Ayn did not favor the Libertarian party anymore than the Republicans or Democrats, but if Hillary wins, the boarders and immigration will make sure that for decades only Democrats will win. Her Supreme Court appointments will destroy the first and second Amendments. The Heller case she so disagrees with is not about "toddlers" it is about that the "right of the people to keep and bare arms" is referring to the individual, not the State. She has pronounced several times over the last 8 years that the freedom of speech should and Constitutionally can be limited by Government. The left always uses the you can't tell fire in a theater argument. But she believes Government should be able to , ban books, restrict speech that is anti Muslim, and ban opposing views on Climate Change.
No as much as I don't like Trump, yes I cast my ballot him.
We have been forced yet again into an election where we must choose the lesser of two evils.

If we have to have a president who accept the bi-partisan consensus of big gov't, which means no Rand Paul or Gary Johnson, she's my first choice. I don't know how to get rid of the bi-partisan consensus. We could elect people to lower office. If they refuse federal monies on principle, as WI Gov Scott Walker did, they just give the federal money to someone else. They don't give it back. I had hoped one of the candidates would have a major scandal, like clear evidence of taking bribes into their personal account or some kind of sex scandal involving an underage person volunteering in politics or something, and then Johnson would actually win. It's not shaping up that way.

No, it's an absolutely on point example. You said that "voting for Johnson is in effect voting for her." I showed that it isn't. At worst, a vote for Johnson translates to half a vote for Hillary, and that's only if that vote for Johnson otherwise would have gone to Trump. In actual fact, if he weren't on the ballot most Gary Johnson voters would either stay home, vote for Hillary or vote for someone else.

In your example, Hillary wins by 8 if those five votes go to her, and only by 3 if those five votes go to Gary Johnson. Again, big difference. It's simply not accurate to say that a vote for Johnson is the same as a vote for Hillary. It clearly isn't, and the math proves it.

anyone who has spent time in the state knows he was propped up by Albuquerque and Los Cruces to fund the Emerald City, rubbing shoulders with hollywood elite and the artists and designers who are patronized by them. In the meantime, travelling off the interstates, you find shells of communtities-ghost towns, really, all the young people have left NM and the only thing in those towns with boarded up shops and old gas stations are bright and shiny small "senior centers." that's Gary Johnson's state.

That's a flawed example. Make Trump leading by 93 to 91 and then deduct the 5 from Trump and Trump loses.

You are correct. He is not going to govern. I was referring to his time as governor of New Mexico, which wasn't perfect, but a lot better than most.

More likely to look to government to fix things again. Solution to medical care equals Obamacare. Solution to housing cris equals TARP and bailouts. Solution to refugee crisis equals citizenship here

There was an economic crash 87 years ago that "woke people up to needing a change," so they elected FDR. We know how well that worked out. At least if it happens again, people will not be so trusting of government to fix their problems.

I think it's a flawed position to take for several reasons. 1) a crash would be a 40+ year thing during which time it would be hell and 2) a crash without widespread philosophical change would just result in a regeneration of socialism. I think their error is that they think a crash would be instant and that a John halt type would magically save us and our economy would just as instantly spring back into action