I get the point he is trying to make, but my problem with this
argument is that it seems to be based on an idea that the default is
that a thing is illegal until a law explicitly allows it, which is
contrary to the way I've always understood things to be.
In other words, in some (perhaps distant) past, marijuana was not
illegal until a legislator decided to pass a law prohibiting its use.
“I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast.”
- Ronald Reagan
Marijuana prohibition was pushed by Reagan because he didn´t liked hippies, not based on anything palpable.
Problem is not law enforcement, it´s the way bogus legislation gets pushed on "democracy" without direct involvement of the people.
it seems to be based on an idea that the default is that a thing is illegal until a law explicitly allows it.
I didn't get that idea at all, and I think you are misreading it. Many examples are given of things that recently were or still are explicitly illegal.
In other words, in some (perhaps distant) past, marijuana was not illegal until a legislator decided to pass a law prohibiting its use.