You remain a one trick pony.
I don't agree with you that it is logical to separate drug possession from drug use from drug from all of the associated crime, when the correlation numbers are so high and there is no positive outcome to offset the harm. I've presented my argument and you've hid behind "bigot!". At this point its a bit pathetic. Don't you own a thesaurus?
If you have it in you, answer one single question. Should the possession of nerve gas or plutonium be illegal, as "possession" has never hurt anyone? What if just having the nerve gas gives the possessor pleasure? Do you think you can answer this directly? Well, neither did I, but at least I'm still being logical.
Now you're just lying, because you have italicized the above, as if I wrote it, but not only didn't I write it, I didn't even use any of the words in your quote, except one, in my entire post to which you replied. Talk about being disingenuous!
I don't agree with you that it is logical to separate drug possession from drug use from drug from all of the associated crime, when the correlation numbers are so high and there is no positive outcome to offset the harm.
Yes, we obviously disagree on that point. I think it's very logical to separate things that are harmful to others (e.g. armed robbery, socialized medicine) from things which are not (e.g. drug possession, or even use for that matter). I've said this before but it hasn't registered with you (yet, anyway) that the gun grabbers can cite "gun violence," health care costs, firearms homicides, and school shootings till the cows come home, none of which refutes the possibility, or even the benefits, of non-criminal gun onwership. It's not logical to them to separate criminal gun misuse from peaceable gun ownership and use - although people like you and I insist that it be done. Similarly, KKK types can cite the higher incidence of criminality amongst blacks, etc., without ever admitting the logically separable fact that non-criminal blacks very much exist, although people like myself, and I hope you too, insist that this separation is made. But when it comes to the drug issue, you refuse to draw any logical line.
I've presented my argument and you've hid behind "bigot!".
There you go - lying again! Twice! I'm not hiding, and I didn't use the word.
If you have it in you, answer one single question. Should the possession of nerve gas or plutonium be illegal, as "possession" has never hurt anyone? What if just having the nerve gas gives the possessor pleasure? Do you think you can answer this directly?
LOL! One single question, and then you ask three. You can't count, either!
But, to humor you, I'll answer them directly. No to nerve gas, and no to plutonium. Nerve gas is used by dispersing it in the air, creating a deadly condition for humans and most other animal life over a great area; plutonium is used by compressing it so that it becomes a supercritical mass, which causes a nuclear explosion, vaporizing a considerable area. It is impossible to use either of these materials without presenting a grave threat of harm to other, innocent humans or to other's property. (And this is increasingly true based on the quantity that one possesses - it's impossible to create a nuclear explosion from 1 milligram of plutonium, so I would argue that possessing 50 kg ought to be more harshly punished than possessing 1 mg, if the latter is punished at all.) But to the extent that possession implies intention of future use, such possession represents a grave risk of harm or death to others, a risk that is intolerable.
Not so with drugs. It is possible to use drugs without harming any other living being or another's property. After consuming a drug, it is not a foregone conclusion that you will murder, rob, rape, assualt, kidnap or maim others, steal their stuff, or burn their houses down. Some drugs even calm you down, or put you out entirely, making you less likely to go on a murderous rampage than you might otherwise have been.
You, of course, refuse to admit even the possibility that drug use can be separated from other such crimes, but such refusal does not exclude this possibility. In fact, many college students experiment with drugs, using money they lawfully earned, and without harming any other person in so doing. Most cease these experiments, some become addicts, and some admittedly become (or already were) otherwise criminally inclined. But it is possible to use drugs without posing any threat of any kind to another human, or another's property, therefore, one cannot presume harmful intent from mere drug possession, unlike the case for nerve gas or plutonium. But, if you can't or won't see this, my answer to your question will be for naught.
(It is also possible to use guns without causing criminal harm to others - target shooting, hunting, collection, self-defense, for example. So mere gun possession does not automatically imply criminal intent - but the gun grabbers can not or will not see this, and there are many jurisdicitions where gun possession is prohibited outright. It is also possible to be black without necessairly possessing criminal intent, contrary to the beliefs of some white supremists. These two parallels continue to apply perfectly, whether or not they are someone's conscious choice.)