>>Secondly, unless you are filthy rich, you're going to have medical bills that the taxpayer has to pick up, and you're going to have to commit crimes to fund your addiction.<<
I am against paying for these medical bills in any way shape or form. And the crimes, once committed, are a separate issue.
I haven't touched drugs since the mid 1970's. I think using them is stupid. But I also have an acquainence that is a successful manager at Microsoft that is 49 and still uses his bong. Those that drink alcohol are a greater burden on our society actually.
Maybe we should make that illegal too. Or did we already try that?
“On that point I disagree strongly. It is one of the most basic tenets of Christianity (for me).”
Sorry, but you can’t have “tenets (for you).” The tenets of Christianity are what they are, and that simply isn’t one of them. You can either accept tenets and agree with Christianity, or reject tenets and disagree with Christianity, but you can’t morph anything into a Christian tenet.
“I will never consider it to be a legitimate argument.”
It is not a legitimate argument in favor of forcing people to wear helmets, or abolishing dangerous activities, or requiring the use of seatbelts, or abolishing private cars in favor of massive public transportation. However, it is a fact that you will then be faced with refusing medical care to people who will die if not treated.
“And the crimes, once committed, are a separate issue.”
No, it is the same issue. People who are not rich and become addicted to heroin, for instance, commit crimes. It is a causal relationship.
“Those that drink alcohol are a greater burden on our society actually.”
I think that’s a myth. I think drug users do many hundreds of times as much damage as drinkers.