Fine, don't do them. Would you commit violence against your fellow man to stop them from using something recreationally?
Violence? That's behavior more closely related to the drug trade.
I believe he is pointing out that by supporting legal penalties for recreational use, the supporter is essentially deputizing the legal system to use force against the recreational user on his behalf.
If a recreational user objects to shiny bracelets and going along to the station for fingerprinting with the nice policeman, the nice policeman is going to use force. If the user objects to this [strike]kidnapping[/strike] arrest, and physically resists, the nice policeman is going to escalate. The nice policeman will escalate to lethal force if need be. All for a recreational use.
I know what he was getting at, I chose to ignore it. Don't break the law and you won't have to worry. Pretty simple.
So,
1) Your answer to his question must then be that you
would use violence against your fellow man for recreational use, or depute others (government agents), or agree with government doing it. And,
2) You were deliberately refusing to answer his question, while
3) Over-simplifying in favor of statism.
I get it.
Wouldn't it be better to just use his question as food for thought to re-examine conclusions and attitudes? Even Ben Franklin, at 80+ years, conceded he had many times found that he was required to modify his opinions after finding out more. At first glance, one might wonder why such a sage fellow would need to modify his opinions if he was so wise in the first place. But, maybe that was part of his formula, listening and re-thinking? Maybe?
