[tempguy9999]

> you are also ruining your family

I effectively never had one, so does that make it acceptable?

> and indirectly society

I know plenty of drug takers that function fine in society[0]. I anticipate your response might be "they would function even better if they didn't", but perhaps forcibly removing choice from adults is also damaging.

[0] and some don't, to be sure.

[esyir]

For public safety, those that function well don't matter that much if the overall trend skews heavily negative though.

[tempguy9999]

This is what it's like arguing with many anti-drugs person. Whatever you say, they'll counter it with anything to push their 'prohibitive' agenda.

It's not even that there's no room for compromise, there's no space even to discuss it, to try and understand their rationale. It's like being a kid again in a classroom with the teacher shouting at you that you can't do that and no they won't explain why.

[homonculus1]

The scary part is that drugs were only volunteered as an offhand example. Authoritarians (in this case openly) apply the same logic to literally any activity, such that even the most vague and indirect tertiary externalities can be twisted into an excuse to police other people. Even the most responsible engagement in [drug use]/[sex]/[motorcycle riding]/[controversial art]/[self-defense]/[political protest] is subject to their judgment and approval because your example might influence someone else!

But even though this loose standard can be stretched to justify literally any prohibition, in practice the only activities that get targeted in the name of community enhancement are the ones that make the group in power feel threatened or uncomfortable.

[robocat]

Maybe we need drinking licences. You need to pass multiple tests that cost a lot of money to administer, and if you are caught breaking the rules you get a fine or go to jail (depending on the legal framework, which rules you broke, and how good your lawyer is).