> Which is as stupid as it can get, unless you add the prescription that said adult must be the only one to bear the consequences of its consumption.
By and large that is already the law. It is already illegal to harm someone else.
This is a significant and annoying factor of many knee-jerk reactions that harshly criminalise already illegal things. That was how the rollback of basic liberties went after 9/11 for example - there was a pretence that somehow terrorism wasn't already illegal and effectively policed. And we ended up with mass spying and about as much terrorism as there ever was. Similar to this, really. I doubt the amount of drugs taken will change, they are just looking for excuses to spy more.
Which means that nobody should be surprised of measures meant to prevent people from getting harmed.
Following your reasoning, as it is already illegal to harm someone else, then there is no point in banning weapons from aeroplanes; or in forbidding drunk people from operating a vehicle...
I'd like to point out that I'm not a priori against drugs; but whoever proposes that anybody can do what he wants within a society, he does not know what society means.
By and large that is already the law. It is already illegal to harm someone else.
This is a significant and annoying factor of many knee-jerk reactions that harshly criminalise already illegal things. That was how the rollback of basic liberties went after 9/11 for example - there was a pretence that somehow terrorism wasn't already illegal and effectively policed. And we ended up with mass spying and about as much terrorism as there ever was. Similar to this, really. I doubt the amount of drugs taken will change, they are just looking for excuses to spy more.