[sneak]

Society has no claim over whether or not I (or anyone else) choose to cause permanent brain damage to myself.

That's the point: drug prohibition is inherently immoral because it denies an adult human being agency over their own body. It's mine to destroy if I see fit; it's mine to build it I see fit.

There is no victim, for example, if I decide to cut off my finger. No one has been wronged, and no crime has occurred.

[paxys]

Society is still responsible for your medical bills. And there's zero chance that someone who has wrecked their body/mind through hard drug use will be able to survive on their own without affecting the lives of others in any way. It doesn't take long for this individual freedom to turn into a widespread public health problem – see the streets of San Francisco for example.

[nathanaldensr]

You are incredibly naive. Have you seen a family member fall to addiction? Have you seen what it does to those around them who love them? We aren't just floating brain vessels in space; we live in a complex society of interdependencies and close biological bonds. Your choices nearly always affect others, especially with something like addiction.

[sneak]

We're not talking about addiction. We're talking about criminal penalties for the possession of drugs, which is entirely orthogonal to addiction, and which was initially deployed on a large scale specifically to jail and resume enslaving nonwhite people in the USA into forced labor camps. (To this end it has worked rather well.)

If you think drugs should be illegal "because addiction", then at least be consistent and go after tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco kills 10x more than opiates in the USA, and alcohol 6x, but somehow it's the opiate epidemic that makes the news.

Once we can agree that a) the law should be fair and consistent and b) adults should be allowed to drink alcohol if they want, we can get to c) people should be allowed to drink any damn thing they like and it's nobody else's business.