Replies

I hear you, but that can send you down a rabbit hole. Some father may spend all his extra time playing video games and ignore his kids. That’s just as bad. maybe not a good example, but you get my point.

Let us place the threshold at "requiring public assistance." It is my personal opinion that any father who is allowing someone else to pay for his kids should not be enjoying himself, whether it be from drugs or any other cause.

Want to toke or play video games all day? Pay for your kids!

If some private business man makes a good salary, owns a home, pays his/her taxes, etc, but wants to get stoned in their backyard around a campfire every weekend - it’s on them.

And this is eminently less objectionable. You eliminate injury to others (dependents or taxpayers) and you've begin to have a reasonable argument in favor of letting people play with drugs, though i'm not sure whether or not the conditions will remain stable long term.

I’m a father of 3 boys age 9,8 and 3. I never smoked pot. Not once. Yeah, drank some beer in High School, went to keg parties in College, etc. I knew plenty of people who smoked pot, most turned out fine. But no, I don’t want my sons to touch pot. I will always vote against legalization.

Pot doesn't destroy everybody. Neither does alcohol. But it does destroy some. The question is, what sort of losses should we regard as acceptable?