"If you can't see the difference in trying to stop people from doing what they want to do to their own bodies versus actual criminal activity (murder, rape, robbery, etc.), there's really no use arguing with you."
This is the most preposterous and tiresome druggie argument of them all.
The same could be said of a suicide bomber. He was just blowing himself up. The others just happened to be there.
In our modern society -- for better or worse -- no man is an island.
No matter how what you may pretend, our society will not let drug addicts die on the street and their (mentally afflicted) children starve to death.
Also, believe it or not, drug addicts drive cars -- and once they get their inevitable rights -- trains, boats and planes.
They also burn down apartments in building where other people live.
You want to multiply these benefits to society a thousand fold. Or more.
And you pretend it's all because you are so principled. What a laugh.
The first principal of any society is to preserve itself.
Just asking.
That makes no sense at all. A suicide bomber has intent to kill others, hence Fox News' (admittedly labored) phrase, "homicide bomber." Suicide bombers don't just happen to kill others and destroy property. It's their intent and you know it. How dumb do you think ppl are to make such an idiotic statement?
A heroin junkie or a crack addict may have ill effects on society, but it's pretty clear that they don't get high or become addicted with the intent of suicidally becoming a drag on others. What total nonsense!
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
No man is an island, as you say, except I guess if your drug of choice is alcohol, then that's okay.
Here's a hypothetical for you:
The two units of a duplex apt. are rented to single males, around 25 YO, with similar jobs and incomes. The guy in unit A gets drunk every night, the guy in unit B gets high on pot every night. Morally, they are engaging in the same behavior, using drugs to alter their moods. But legally, they are treated differently. The guy in unit A can get drunk every night of his life and the police won't bother him. However, as you well know, the guy in unit B is in trouble with the law whether he smokes pot 7 days a week, 7 times a month, or 7 times a year. Their behavoirs are morally equal, yet they are treated differently and unequally before the law.
The simple fact of the matter is that you and your ilk are making distictions in the law when the underlying behaviors are the same. That is injustice, there's no denying it.
Let's face, you and your ilk support injustice in the law. I just wish you'd be honest enough to admit it.