“Not necessarily, as you acknowledge, with “can become absolutely psychotic.” In fact, I know of no “psychoactive” drug whose normal dose necessitates psychotic or, more to my point, assaultive behavior.”
It doesn’t necessitate assaultive behavior. It just makes it a lot more likely.
If, every time somebody dropped acid, they decided they were Superman and drove down the street backwards, it would be easy to convince you, I suppose.
But sometimes they just sit around and giggle. Sometimes they just go to raves and don’t get into any accidents. Sometimes they go to class and, although they are acting weird, don’t hurt anybody.
You never know. Just like someone who is psychotic isn’t killing or hurting people all day long. It’s not constant.
If, every time somebody dropped acid, they decided they were Superman and drove down the street backwards, it would be easy to convince you, I suppose.
Much more plausible case for your side, yes. Even then, I don't see the need to make the (unprecedented) Superacid illegal, as opposed to simply prosecuting Superman for driving down the street backwards.
But sometimes they just sit around and giggle. Sometimes they just go to raves and don’t get into any accidents. Sometimes they go to class and, although they are acting weird, don’t hurt anybody.
Yes, probably almost always. Why is that? I say that it has to do with the character and values of the drug users.
You never know. Just like someone who is psychotic isn’t killing or hurting people all day long. It’s not constant.
Should we lock up all psychotics, assuming they have a higher frequency of assaulting others? What if they have a lower frequency of assaulting others?
Should we lock up individuals who sport "Hell's Angels" jackets, since "their type" have a higher frequency of assault than does the general population of psychotics?
(As to my last 3 questions, I would answer "no")