It’s your opinion that I “fail,” but the plain fact is that you and I don’t agree on the threat of stoned persons.
We’d both, I think, want someone arrested for waving a knife in our face in a threatening manner, even if no damage was done.
But I’d want the participants in a crack den arrested for getting high, and you would not. You think they are exercising a liberty. I say they are indulging a sin, or evil if you prefer, that threatens OVERMUCH a law abiding society.
You say things like pleasure driving threaten society, too. I say the risk there is far more minimal, insurance rates are evidence of that, and that there are some benefits to pleasure driving yet none with drug abuse.
As for your habit of smoking one or two hits and yet not getting high, good for you, however, it is not my opinion that this is the usual practice. I can’t prove it, though, just speaking from life experience (mostly as a teen, around teen and adult pot smokers.) Except at a couple of weddings, in my adult life it is not my experience that people usually drink until drunk.
I suppose that the majority of Americans must agree with me, because social drinking for adults is legal, while drunkenness and using other psychoactive drugs is not. That’s where we’ve landed as a society. You’d like to change that.
So, you want to make marijuana use equivalent to social drinking. I don’t see it that way. That doesn’t mean I “fail.” It just means we don’t agree.
Once marijuana is legalized, of course, we can start the argument that hashish is just like marijuana. After that we can start in on cocaine, and etc., until like the Libertarian standard bearer Ron Paul, we say heroin should be legalized if the states so deem.
I’ll oppose it all the way, I guess you will support it, and we’ll see who wins.
The benefit to pleasure driving is pleasure - ditto for drug use.
As for your habit of smoking one or two hits and yet not getting high,
It's no longer my habit to smoke anything - I was just pointing out something I'd done that you'd "never heard of or seen someone do."
good for you, however, it is not my opinion that this is the usual practice.
As I've said several times, with no response from you, "Alcohol was used exclusively in irrationalizing doses when that drug was illegal. It's not the drug, it's the incentive structure."
Except at a couple of weddings, in my adult life it is not my experience that people usually drink until drunk.
Perhaps not usually, but certainly often.
I suppose that the majority of Americans must agree with me,
Ah, argument by nose-counting - very persuasive.
because social drinking for adults is legal, while drunkenness and using other psychoactive drugs is not.
No, drunkenness in a privately owned place is quite legal (with the unproven but possible exception of while one is caring for minor children).
So, you want to make marijuana use equivalent to social drinking. I don’t see it that way. That doesn’t mean I “fail.” It just means we don’t agree.
I've offered more support for my position than you have for yours.
Once marijuana is legalized, of course, we can start the argument that hashish is just like marijuana.
Straw man - nobody says drug A is "just like" drug B. The point is that no drug yet devised by man has the properties that would justify a complete ban - and the corollary point that alcohol comes closer to being that drug than does marijuana.
After that we can start in on cocaine, and etc.,
Of course we should have those arguments - how else will the majority of Americans make an informed decision?
until like the Libertarian standard bearer Ron Paul, we say heroin should be legalized if the states so deem.
The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to override such a state decision.
if you want to allow for a person to take a puff or two and be held just as liable for a glass or two or three, put me down for that.
"Just as liable" means legal to sell, buy, and possess. Glad to have you on board!