should government not be able to enforce drug laws?
should all couples be allowed to marry?
what should the new legal drinking age be?
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I say the answer to all three of your questions is simply this:
A person should be allowed to do anything with their own body and property so long as they do not physically harm another persons’ body or property. I say they should also be free to associate with another person so long as everyone involved consents to the action or contract.
Thus: Those in government should not only not enforce the drug laws, they should repeal them.
The government should not be dictating the terms of any contracts, in this case, marriage.
Drinking age? Its up to the person.
Does one smoking a certain plant have any [necessary] effect on any other individual? If yes, then the [negatively] affected individuals can sue (and no government is required). If no, then no-one has any right to intervene.
What is marriage? State-sanctioned tax benefits are not something libertarians propound (because they reject tax altogether). If it is church-recognition, then it is the church’s choice who is accepted as married. If marriage is a contract, then breach of contract can be sued against.
Within the context of a state though (i.e. if the state is taken as a given), all couples should be able to marry.
Parents and individuals know better than governments what age to sell alcohol at. For example here in the UK the legal drinking age when you are at home with your parents is 5, but there is not a large drinking problem for 5-10 year olds.
It is far easier for a child to get black market drugs than it is for them to get legal market regulated ones such as alcohol or even cigarettes. You never hear about the beer dealer being busted in a middle school. Decrimianlization would also end the murderous Drug War and the largest portion of organized crime in the world and history (aside from the govts themselves.)
This policy has failed and resulted over crowded prisons and death. All in the name of the children.
I think that the definition of marriage should be decided through the usage of the people. It is not the governments place to define or redefine certain concepts. If the government was define “down” as “moving toward the sky” nothing changes. The government simply got it wrong and no one would take them seriously.
I also don’t see why there has to be a single definition for marriage. If two men, two women, a man and a women, two men and a women or three women want to call themselves married fine. That doesn’t mean others have to conform to the same definition. Eventually through the usage of the people marriage would be defined itself. No need for the government intervention.