That I partially agree with. But that does nothing to legitimize the legalization of hard drugs.
Interesting point. I was sitting here wondering to myself if the simple abscence of a law against an act necessarily means promotion or acceptance of such act. Does it?
And it's particularly poignant in this thread because the post centered around the oppressive laws promulgated and enforced by the Taliban. Now, it seems that they would make exactly such an argument that you appear to be making: that is, that if an act is not outlawed, then it is promoted. Hence, they create and enforce all types of laws that we would find oppressive in this country.
But don't we have to take into account the enforcement of any such law that we pass? Say, we pass a law against adultery when there are young children in the families. We might all agree that this is ruinous and really should be outlawed---it obviously shouldn't be promoted! But then, how is such a law enforced? Just imagine the shredding of our liberties and privacy in trying to capture proof of adultery. So, perhaps such a law is not advisable.
Perhaps laws against drug use are not advisable, either.