LOL! You're really a piece of work! You are, of course, free to cite any post I have made, but it's certainly odd for you to wait until I don't call you a bigot in a post, for you to then claim that the only thing I can do is that - a "one trick pony" as you put it. In any case, when I specifically state that I didn't say something in a particular post, you have no basis to claim outrage that I did, in fact, say it in other posts. It's almost like you don't comprehend the written word. Well, can't or won't, maybe, but certainly don't.
Again the beauty of an analogy is when the target of that analogy sees the connection.
I'm certainly not harboring any illusions that you will ever see the striking parallels between your own position on drugs, and the corresponding ones regarding guns and black people that I repeatedly cited and expanded upon - from the sweeping generalizations and the inseparability of distinct issues, all the way down to a formative trauma in your youth.
I'm now backing away slowly and avoiding eye contact.
But you'll be back for more, no doubt. It's almost like you're addicted to posting to me - you said you'd stop, but you keep coming back for more. Ironically, addiction to drugs is something you would lock another away for life after only one or a few times. I wonder what the difference is between your posting habits and a drug user's addiction? You have already admitted to feeling a guilty pleasure posting to me. Does it give you a rush? When would it be appropriate to violently deprive someone else (other than you, of course) of their rights, if they admitted to symptoms and expressed behaviors like these?
For starters,the thievery, broken lives, and dead bodies. Anything else you can't figure out?
Again, that would be when the vast majority of them started stealing and killing. Gosh its easy answering these questions. You should try answering questions some time. Its not that hard. Funny how I'm the one that can't stop - who's writing your posts?
If 90% of gun owners committed armed robbery and murder with their guns, I could no longer argue for the right to be armed. But as an armed citizenry is extremely important to a free society, and the percentage of citizens who commit crime with a weapon is so low, its a strong case of perception meeting reality.
Now let's assume that drugs are legalized. One of us would end up being wrong.
-If crime rates dropped and no vast infusion of government money was required to fix the problem, I would admit I was wrong and solely concentrate on the morality of overindulgence as a matter of personal responsibility. It wouldn't change my mind on it being a human right, but it would change my mind on societies need to curb a harmful behavior.
-What would your position be if crime rates soared? Is there any level of mayhem that would change your mind, or would the right to drugs be all important?
I don't doubt that you fully believe that decriminalization would lead to less crime. But I'm curious about what level of crime you would be willing to tolerate if you were wrong? I'd appreciate a straight forward answer.
As the majority of people think you are wrong, you may want to think about a fall back position, should your great social experiment go awry. I think you have some responsibility there. One of my worries is that "legalization" would end up being like "socialism" where those advocating it are more wedded to their high-minded ideals than reality, and that no amount of failure can dissuade them. It's just never been done right yet.