And if a psuedo-conservative doesn’t like having a severe torture penalty applied to himself for the same kind of torture he willingly, even gleefully, gave another after choosing to take the substance that took his mind away, then he has no understanding of personal responsibility and accountability and he believes government should be “limited” only to the extent it lets him get away with maiming others while not being personally maimed.
If a conservative doesnt like recreational drugs, he ...
Theres no such thing as a recreational drug.
If a pseudo-conservative doesnt like recreational drugs, he tapdances around the principle of limited government. (A recreational drug is, of course, a drug taken with recreational intent.)
And if a psuedo-conservative doesnt like having a severe torture penalty applied
This has nothing to do with the post to which it's a reply ... and I never said I was opposed to your proposal ... but, whatever.
to himself for the same kind of torture he willingly, even gleefully, gave another after choosing to take the substance that took his mind away, then he has no understanding of personal responsibility and accountability and he believes government should be limited only to the extent it lets him get away with maiming others while not being personally maimed.
Your proposal certainly squares with personal responsibility and accountability, although I think it may have Eighth Amendment issues. I definitely agree that at a minimum, impairment due to voluntary substance use should never be considered a mitigating factor in any crime or tort.