[DiogenesLamp]

I am 100% against recreational use, too. It’s personal for me. Both my brothers have been ‘recreational users’, off and on for decades. Neither had any ambition to do much for themselves, and I blame that on the dope, as they were NOT brought up that way. And now, in the twilight of their lives, they decry their situation. They are not on welfare, they are both still making their own way in life, but they are not ‘better off than their parents’ by a long shot.

I constantly point this out. Libertarians are always alleging there are "No victims" and I point out that there are indeed victims, but they are often separated by years from the initial event.

People that lose all ambition as a result of drug use are victims. People that go on to stronger drugs after being introduced to using drugs are also victims. The people who depend on drug users (such as their children) are also victims.

Weed makes a lot of people lazy and worthless, and people may say that it's their right to be lazy and worthless, and this is perhaps true to some extent, but not if they end up sucking on the taxpayer's tit. Many of them end up sucking on the taxpayer's tit.

[P-Marlowe]

Winston Churchill was a perfect example of a high functioning alcoholic. There are many.

I don’t think you can find a single example of a “high functioning” pot head.

[NobleFree]

Weed makes a lot of people lazy and worthless, and people may say that it's their right to be lazy and worthless, and this is perhaps true to some extent, but not if they end up sucking on the taxpayer's tit. Many of them end up sucking on the taxpayer's tit.

Overeating makes a lot of people moribund and worthless, and many of them end up sucking on the taxpayer's tit. Does that justify government regulation of adults' diets? (Moochelle said yes, I say no.)