So the one who left was bi. .

"The question is, should we make tobacco products illegal, which really is the only effective way to ban their use."

That's circular reasoning. We should ban them because that's teh only way to ban them.

No, govermnent shouldn't have the right to prevent adults from harming themselves. Government is necessary to solve conflicts between people but not to tell people how to live.

Besides, every form of drug prohibition creates a black market and a crime problem that is bigger than the problems caused by the drug itself.

WE don't know. I find it somewhat more likely taht there is no good but there is no way to be sure.

Sorry, I didn't see that. .

As long as bioth partners are old enough to consent, do consent and neither of them is cheating on a third person I don't see anything wrong with it.

Do you have any sources to back up this claim? .

It's what invaders from Essembly do. They bring their bad habits to CD, they bring their strange words to CD, they bring copied debates to CD. Essemblers are evil.

All in all it's reducing pollution more than creating it. It works well in many other countries, so why not in the US?

This is a ridiculous strawman resolve.

Most conservatives don't want to ban gay sex or strauight oral or anal sex or sex before marriage. They may find it immoral but they don't want to ban it.

There are almost no conservatives who want to ban alternative religions.

Keeping the spankinbg of children legal isn't nanny-statish at all - parents can decide themselves if they want to spank their children or not.

Having English as official language doesn't have anything to do with the nanny state.

Not allowing gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with teh nanny state either.

You can do better than that, Hadrian.