Replies

Laws that prohibit the ownership of substances where mere possesion is a threat to others,

You have never established that the mere possession of ANY mind altering sustance is such a threat. -- Neither has the state. - That is merely an unsupported opinion.

and is supported by the majority of the state are neither arbitrary or purposeless.

Makes no difference what a majority thinks. -- We have constitutional law to follow on such matters.

If the state, without consent of the majority suddenly banned bicycles just for the heck of it, that would be arbitrary and purposeless. --

You got it on bikes, -- to bad you can't understand the same principle appies to booze, guns, -- and even drugs.

That is because the majority of the state supports hard drug prohibition, therefore it is not arbitrary; and they support that position because they view it as too much of a threat, therefore it is not purposeless.

You have never established that the mere possession of ANY mind altering sustance is such a threat.

I can just imagine the drug dealer arguing such nonsense in court:

"I wasn't going to sell those crack bindles to addicts, your Honor. I just like carrying them around in my pocket for, er, umm, good luck. Yeah, good luck, that's the ticket!"