[stretchwithme]

And there wouldn't be any justification for seizing people's property before they are even proven guilty, if ever. Not that it ever was justified.

The Netherlands closed prisons after it decriminalized drugs.

Personally, I think this should be decided at the neighborhood level, like many social issues. If people are ok with it where they live, it should be allowed. If they don't want it around their kids, that should be possible as well.

[DerpDerpDerp]

> If they don't want it around their kids, that should be possible as well.

Restricting other people's rights because "THINK OF MY CHILDREN!" is how we got in to a lot of these messes in the first place.

I mean, what if your daughter got high on the marijuanas and dated a Negro? The shame it would bring on the family!

[stretchwithme]

Thee is always some rational for curtailing freedom. For example, some people want to prevent me from lying down on the ground, just because some cars want to use the space to go places.

The line must be drawn somewhere. We all draw it at our own front door for example.

I think the problem is that shared spaces are usually created and governed by coercion rather than by mutual agreement governed by a contract.

When you have a contract with your neighbors, the rules are in the contract. To change it requires mutual agreement. The contract can also end. I think this is a more appropriate arrangement than forcing people to live a certain way.

If your neighborhood wants nudity and crack cocaine and bike only trails instead of car traffic, that should be your business. People that want those things can move to these neighborhoods. And those that don't can avoid them.

This seems like more freedom than we currently allow. Freedom to do and freedom to avoid. Good fences make good neighbors and this just seems like a logical extension of that.