You're arguing for the merits of marijuana being legal. That's different than arguing over the bounds of what government should and should not regulate. A stat

You're arguing for the merits of marijuana being legal. That's different than arguing over the bounds of what government should and should not regulate. A statement like "There is no logical reason to allow all drugs if you allow marijuana" is both correct and irrelevant here. The question is whether government had a right to regulate drugs. Once you agree it does, it has a right to regulate marijuana. If you don't think it does, it can't regulate any of them. Once you agree it can regulate drugs, which ones it regulates is purely a question of policy. Regulating marijuana might be a bad idea, but saying it's outside of the scope of government regulation is a view extreme for virtually any state, including Texas. I'll also mention: There are a lot of breeds of Republican states. Many are not small government Republicans, for example, but Christian values Republicans. The Republican party is, in many ways, a weak confederacy on values. Texas is at an extreme end of believing it's about small government and freedom. And yes, freedom is more complex than the Texas ideal. If I have $200k in college debt, two minimum wage jobs, I'm under NDA, a child support agreement, and without access to health care, I don't have much freedom. But that lack of freedom doesn't come from the government restricting me.