If you choose to describe majority of the electorate in multiple elections in a row as “not meeting the definition of ‘being a functional adult’”, then whatever definition you used for those words are not useful ones — and that’s just Prohibition.

Disagreeing with the requirements of sections 64, 65, and 70? Outside of philosophical discussions, most normal people find them sufficiently repulsive that even suggesting they might not be things that ought to be illegal is enough to make you a social pariah. (I’m not sure exactly how 69 or 71 are seen, but the actions they outlaw are demonstrably frowned on enough for the sections to survive multiple elections).