Hail advocate of the Nanny State!
Your arguments are rather Orwellian in nature. Drugs cause its users to commit crimes in order to 'score' more, so we must ban such substances? Ah, no. That is blaming an inanimate object for willful behavior on the part of the user. Charge the user for the burglary, theft, murder, et al, that they have committed, but do not say 'the drugs made them do it'. We are all possesed of free will. These individuals chose to use that free will to get high. Bully for them. I wouldn't do it myself, but hey, that's just me.
Your argments can be used to ban any possibly 'dangerous' substance or object. That makes your argument dangerous to freedom and liberty. Remember, we fought a war based on the concept of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". The dopers have the dumb idea that getting high makes them happy. Whethter that is an illusion or not is not your or my business. Further, no one made the user take the first toke, hit, or snort of those substances. They chose to to so. Don't blame the drug, blame the user.
And I would use the word 'draconian', not tyrannical, to describe the Rockefeller Laws.
Namecalling is a good sign that someone has no substantive argument.
Your arguments are rather Orwellian in nature.
And the hysterical rhetoric ratchets up another notch.
Drugs cause its users to commit crimes in order to 'score' more, so we must ban such substances?
This is called a straw man. You pretend that I said something that I did not say and then argue against your own words that you have put in my mouth. Sorry.
Drugs do not cause behavior. They incentivize behavior.
Ah, no. That is blaming an inanimate object for willful behavior on the part of the user.
Wow, what a simple analysis!
Charge the user for the burglary, theft, murder, et al, that they have committed, but do not say 'the drugs made them do it'.
Again you assume that I have eliminated individual culpability without warrant.
We are all possesed of free will.
All free will is sharply delimited by reality.
One of the realities of drug abuse is that it alters the brain chemistry of the abuser.
Your argments can be used to ban any possibly 'dangerous' substance or object. That makes your argument dangerous to freedom and liberty.
Not at all. The straw man arguments that you have invented for me might be, but my actual position - which you have not even referenced - is nothing of the kind.
Remember, we fought a war based on the concept of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
Thanks for reminding me.
The dopers have the dumb idea that getting high makes them happy.
And rapists have the dumb idea that raping people will make them happy. And drug dealers have the dumb idea that giving free samples of their product to teens in order to get them hooked will make them happy. So, the pursuit of happiness is clearly not an absolute.
Further, no one made the user take the first toke, hit, or snort of those substances. They chose to to so. Don't blame the drug, blame the user.
No one blames the drug. The existing laws do not sentence inanimate lumps of crack and crank to jail time, they sentence the users and dealers of those substances. The users and dealers are very much being blamed and I will gladly acknowledge your trivial statement that it isn't a rock of crack's fault that someone smokes it.
And I would use the word 'draconian', not tyrannical, to describe the Rockefeller Laws.
The word "draconian" comes, of course, from Draco - the Athenian lawgiver who prescribed the death penalty for such minor offenses as petty theft. The Rockefeller drug laws, which do not prescribe capital punishment for any offense, don't really merit the word in its purest sense. The Rockefeller drug laws are more punitive than many other states' drug laws. That's as much as can be objectively said about them.