“One use of a high enough dose of the drug alcohol can make you crazy, irrational, paranoid, mentally ill, mentally unstable, or incoherent - and yet you say that drug should nonetheless remain legal. Why? “
I say that public drunkenness with that drug (alcohol) should remain illegal.
Private use in the home, since it can’t very well be regulated without cops knocking on every other door, is not practical.
Be honest with yourself.
Scenario: You have a two year old and need a babysitter. Who do you hire?
1. Your cousin, the meth addict.
2. Your neighbor, who smokes a bowl every morning and every night.
3. Your old volleyball coach, who likes to party on crack.
4. Your friend, who has a glass of wine every night with dinner.
If you are a decent person and being honest, you’d say, there is no way 1-3 would be a candidate, whereas #4 is no problem. Why? ‘Cause a glass of wine with dinner does not impact her sanity. It may actually improve it!
Now, your friend probably buys that wine by the box. Am I advocating that neighborhood watch knock on her door nightly to make sure she isn’t drinking the whole box in one night? I am not. The negatives of having nightly sobriety checks outweigh any benefits.
However, I am advocating the total abolition, illegality, whatever you like to call it, of pot, crack, coke, LSD, speed, ‘shrooms, you name it, there is no benefit to these mind altering concoctions and there is harm in even small doses, so there.
Leave your kid with the neighborhood crackhead if you think it’s all the same difference.
Utterly irrelevant to the question of what should be legal for adults who are not caring for minors.
2. Your neighbor, who smokes a bowl every morning and every night. [...]
4. Your friend, who has a glass of wine every night with dinner.
I notice you had to cook the books there. My friend who drinks every morning won't get my 2 year old either.
I am advocating the total abolition, illegality, whatever you like to call it, of pot, crack, coke, LSD, speed, ‘shrooms, you name it, there is no benefit to these mind altering concoctions
In a free society the burden is not on adults to prove that their activities are "beneficial." I see no benefit to the WWF or wearing one's cap backward, but I don't call for banning them.
and there is harm in even small doses
Evidence?
And why are you moving the goal posts from "making you crazy, irrational, paranoid, mentally ill, mentally unstable, or incoherent" (which you admitted only prolonged use of pot does) to "harm"?