>>66165
> Almost everybody has family and friends, and they are harmed when people become mentally ill, or ill in other ways.
Well, like I stated before. A dual diagnosis is not the same as a causal relationship. Drug Addiction is found heavily with people who have mental illnesses, but this doesn't imply that the drugs are what caused the mental illness. Another thing to keep in mind is what you're implying. Are you implying they're hurt on an emotional level and therefore warrants violence? If so, then does hurting people's feelings warrant action against the person who's hurting other people's feelings?
>We make law for the 99%, not the 1%.
A law is a law, the population that it applies to is everyone, whether it's 99% or 1%, etc. There's plenty of people who smoke in their own home alone while playing video games or watching movies etc, so I still don't understand the relevance of your argument. Am I to imply that if I choose to smoke weed in my own home alone, that the law doesn't apply to me but if I smoke with other people I'm in a world of trouble?
>Good. So the argument-
Again, read the rest of the argument, you seem to have done that, considering your next point.
>Just because it's on your own property doesn't mean no one else is affected. You should admit this.
I can't admit to something without knowing what you mean, what do you mean by someone else being affected? You stated mental illness, but again a dual diagnosis isn't a causal relationship. So what do you mean?
>Is it? Many Muslim terrorist have been discovered to be marijuana users, including, I think, Omar Mateen, though I could be remembering it wrong.
Question: How many murderers do you think smoked cigarettes?
Other points to keep in mind is that marijuana itself is more popular than ever before, so the fact that someone who commits a crime doesn't mean that this influenced him in any way.
The final point in regards to this, is that this is a rather strange argument. Omar Mateen as described in your own words was "a Muslim terrorist" who hated gays and generally loathed his own life. He had used and experimented with marijuana in the past, but that doesn't mean anything. He'd shown signs of being troubled since childhood, so this argument is odd.
>Which clearly isn't enough to deter them from using drugs, or even using drugs in front of the police.
Again, I'm still waiting on proof of this "using drugs in front of police thing", and this yet again doesn't change the fact that they still potentially face legal consequences.
Another question to keep in mind is that if it doesn't deter people from using drugs as you say then what's the point of making it illegal?
>It is if you care about these people, their families, etc
Caring about people means using violence against them for non-violent activities now?
>Perhaps not inherently, but generally speaking, it does, and you did not specify inherently, once again. Even after I specifically called you out for being dishonest in this way.
My use of "inherently" does not change the argument, had I not used the word the argument would have stayed the same. Again, this is nothing but autistic screeching, an episode of which doesn't change the argument.
>>66166
>>>66165
>Oh yes, we were talking about people who used cars to commit terrorism and also used marijuana.
That's a very odd criteria.
>The Charlotteslive driver did use some sort of illicit substance. I remember reading about it.
Well, that's not the case. As far as I could find, there's no evidence he used illicit substances. Even then, I'd be hard pressed to believe that's what drove him to do what he did as opposed to his ideological leanings.
>I didn't specifically, indirectly, or in any roundabout way imply violence every time.
Then next time, actually expand on your fucking argument and stop making generalized statements, something of which you still do as seen above. When you make an argument, you actually need to explain what you mean.
>Okay, but that's nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a war on drug users. It goes both ways.
But they still face potential legal consequences, and no, it's effect as a deterrent doesn't change anything.
>Where 'autistic screeching' means pointing out that speeding also isn't inherently harmful, but everybody still supports making speeding illegal.
Speeding in your own private lot isn't illegal because you own that property. Why is smoking marijuana going to be put in a separate category? People can potentially die from going at certain speeds in their own private lots, that would certainly impact the emotional lives of families and yet I'm sure you wouldn't make that illegal now would you?