You brought up drugs first. In any event, read your Burke, men are apportioned liberty in direct proportion to which they constrain their appetites. In the 19th century, cocaine, heroin and so on were all legal because it was deeply shameful to take that stuff, and it kept the lid on. As the lid gradually came off, and people ended up dying in hospitals, et al, the laws changed in response. Because law abiding citizens like myself who stay straight shouldn't have to pay for people who are dumb enough to toke up.
Bringing up drink is a red herring. You are talking to someone who used to live in Amsterdam - there is a difference between stoned and drunk. Drunk is self limiting - as a teenager I am sure that you have seen those limits at your average kegger and had to make sudden trips to the loo when the body said, "Please, no more Budweiser!"
Illegal narcotics on the other hand are more corrosive. There is pot out there that is way more potent than the advocates of legalisation were taking amidst the mud of Woodstock. What is worse is that often the only limits to drug taking is usually when the brain forgets to make the heart beat. The potency of marijuana has reached the point that half the tourist population of Amsterdam is wondering if it's on the planet Mars tonight and even Labour MPs reject the idea of legalisation here. Oh, and sadly none of the users are ashamed about being seen in public this way.
However, you are young and haven't had much opportunity to pay taxes for other people acting like jackasses. When you do, I am sure you'll realise the wisdom your elders are doing the favour of passing onto you.
Ivan
And just who is doing the "apportioning"?
and tonight, as every night, those who pursue the intoxication of alcohol to the extreme are in their own realm. but every glass they drink is another payment to the revenue fund.
if you dont own your consiousness
WHO does?
the state.