Well, until pot is legalized OR unless one grows his own, he is failing his fellow man by supporting drug dealers and suppliers who are responsible for a large percentage of crime and deaths in the country.
And once pot is legalized he is not. Would a user of legal pot be failing his responsibility to his fellow man in any way?
If one grows his own, and wants to go through life stoned and stupid, that is his decision.
Not now it isn't. Do you agree that it should be?
But I don't think legalizing his vice is beneficial to him or to society as a whole.
Liberty may not be "beneficial" - but it's not the proper business of government to restrict his liberties for his "benefit" or society's, any more than it should mandate a personally or societally "beneficial" bedtime for him. Liberals argue that Obamacare is "beneficial to society as a whole" - do we have to argue that it isn't to argue against Obamacare, or is liberty a good in itself?
As long as he stays off the dole, and doesn't ask for free medical care for the complications from pot smoking, no. But he is failing his responsibility to himself.
If one grows his own, and wants to go through life stoned and stupid, that is his decision.
Not now it isn't. Do you agree that it should be?
Balderdash. Most pot smokers never get busted for smoking, so they have that decision. The same if I decide to speed. But both have their consequences.
Liberty may not be "beneficial"
According to the Christian ethic, drug use is not a liberty, it is a vice, as is drunkenness (but not drinking per se, and there is a difference).
Liberals argue that Obamacare is "beneficial to society as a whole"
They can say that, but it doesn't make it true. My point was that pot smoking is neither beneficial to the user OR to society, and it is a vice that shouldn't be legalized.