For this leftie fairness fantasy to work out, everyone HAS to agree what "fair" is all about.
Why?
Who gets to say which opinion is "some idiot who refuses to see reason"? Who makes that determination, and by what authority? If some guy's opinions are getting stomped all over, that doesn't sound all that "fair" to me. Thus, your mission to be fair requires being unfair to function. Doesn't that strike you as some twisted logic? Seriously, I'm not being snarky with this—it's a logical question and the crux of this whole discussion.
"Trying to please everyone at once" isn't part of what I think is fair. If someone is wrong about what's fair then it's fair to overrule him.
Also, why is it fair to overrule someone who disagrees? Like I said, if we include absolute veto into our discussion we're going to end up with anarchy, because we won't be able to agree on any rules. So it doesn't matter that we might overrule the guy who's 100 % spot on on what's fair, because the result of not including absolute veto is still fairer than what we'd get with absolute veto.
So, since fair is what the Veil of Ignorance dictates us to do overruling the lone guy who doesn't agree is fair. Now we just need to figure out how exactly to go about dealing with disagreements. There's GOT to be some better way than absolute veto (since absolute veto ensures that nothing gets done).
So now we have agreement, and we hold the majority over BN. Is it "fair" for us to impose our will on him if his actions aren't affecting others (in other words, he's not driving a semi down the road while he's approaching unconsciousness)? Maybe it's perfectly fair for us, but he might think otherwise.
You, me and BN aren't the only ones affected by alcohol being legal/allowed though. If alcohol is illegal there will be alcoholics. Alcohol is involved in 80 % of all violent crime, so if alcohol is illegal there will be five times as many victims of violent crime. If there are alcoholics there will be kids growing up with alcoholic parents, or they're going to get removed from their parents since their parents aren't able to properly care for them and in either case their growth is going to be miserable (more or less).
Either these pepole (the alcoholics, the violent crime victims and the kids with alcoholic parents) are going to be worse off because we don't ban alcohol, or BN (and all other drinkers) will be worse off because we don't.
It's arguable which side is right, though I tend to side with the first side (hence why I'm for a ban on alcohol, at least in theory). I believe grief hurts more than pleasure heals and I believe the positive effects of alcohol comes with hidden negative effects even on the users who can handle it (meaning, doesn't get violent or addicted). But (like I said) that's arguable, and I believe most pepole would disagree. I personally write that down to bias. Most pepole like alcohol so much they don't want there to be anything wrong with it.
(Of course, prohibition doesn't work so banning alcohol (and other drugs) becomes rather hollow, but let's pretend it does for the sake of argument.)
Übereil