[wfunction]

> In fact, a significant majority do not lose free agency; should they all be restricted because some people can't handle it?

What's the difference between this argument and "why should I have to pay for the insurance of others who get sick? should we all have to pay because a few can't live a healthy life?"?

[dunmalg]

>What's the difference between this argument and "why should I have to pay for the insurance of others who get sick? should we all have to pay because a few can't live a healthy life?"?

Accepting universal drug prohibition is not anything like accepting mandatory insurance. Mandatory insurance results in nearly everyone being covered by insurance. Conversely, universal prohibition doesn't result in people NOT using drugs, it simply results in drugs being expensive and unregulated. Over a century of of strict prohibition has demonstrated this extensively.

[warsharks]

living a healthy life does not guarantee you a life free of health problems. but fair enough if they must restrict it have a licence system whereby people apply for the substances they wish to use and have to pass a test that confirms their basic understanding of the chemicals, if properly educated the vast majority of people would be responsible just as they are when driving a car