[orangello]

On 1, I do think the time has come for a change in the law/perception that the government should have such control over a citizen's intake & output (next they will be complaining about the color of my poop).

On 2 and 3, I think the best resolution for that problem would be a MASSIVE reduction of the size and power of the federal government in all areas other than defense. Of course, step-by-step reductions in federal over-reach such as an elimination or MAJOR retooling of the GCA of 1968 and the Controlled Substances Act would be an excellent start. If a citizen is free to choose his/her own food & "supplements" AND is allowed the freedom of self-defense currently limited by the GCA of '68, the chafing of other federal restrictions might be less of an annoyance.

On 4, there can be no arguement that an impaired person shouldn't be using dangerous tools or heavy equipment. The question of the definition of "impaired" is the only sticking point; some would consider any detectable trace of an intoxicant to show "impairment". Current "impairment" measurements for alcohol and driving would indicate that the majority opinion doesn't support a zero detectable trace-tolerance policy.

Overall, the right to self-defense and the right to control one's own body are both freedoms that should be protected from further government infringement by any means available, IMO.

Of course, laws such as these did not come about in a vacuum. It could be argued that they came about due to citizens' failures to limit themselves safely or to exercise "good judgement", but i'm not sure the twisted history of the GCA or CSA support that theory of their origin.