I trimmed
“and quit, possibly with long term side effects”
for brevity. You had already quoted the whole thing to me. I quoted back the beginning portion, for reference. I don’t see what the problem is.
If you use drugs, and quite, you can possibly have long term side effects. If you shot drugs, you could have HIV. Or not. If you did meth, you could have nasty teeth. Or not. If you dropped acid, you could have brain damage. Or not. If you smoked pot, you could still be paranoid. Or not.
It depends on a lot of factors, including how much you used, how often, and how susceptible you were to the effects.
Right?
I see the ubquitous nanny government having it's roots in a mindset that says anything that's possible is probable, and legislates based on the worst case scenario.
You say that you believe most people given the opportunity to use potentially addictive drugs would abuse them, and the only outcomes you forsee are that they quit after becoming addicted, die of their addiction, or end up in prison.
You believe that for most people any use of any potentially addictive drug (except alcohol) without becoming addicted is simply not an option, and theorize that there's something about alcohol that makes it an exception.
I don't believe that. I believe that the fact that most who use alcohol manage to do it without becoming addicted is because most adults have the ability to moderate their use of potentially addictive drugs.
Put into political terms, our difference of opinion comes down to a difference in how the government should look upon the governed. As adults who should be assumed to be capable of recognizing risks and making decisions, or as helpless incompetents who need to be told what to do, and made to do it.