It is really funny to me that you keep cherry picking my responses. It is even more funny that you believe I am arguing against “the facts of the matter”.

I never said “unrestricted access to any drug”, did I?

So you definitely agree that the prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted, for the good of society?

What do you believe is the difference between “Prohibition of all drugs to be lifted” and “unrestricted access to any drug”?

Last I checked prohibition means “to prohibit”, or in other words “to restrict”, so a lack of prohibition is a lack of restriction. In your own words “Prohibition of all drugs has to be lifted for the good of society”.

To quote you, to you.

You’d rather chew your own leg off than answer my question from the previous comment. That’s how strong the propaganda is, and I don’t know why it affects you so much.

I will pose my questions one more time.

Did you ever stop to think that the propaganda you speak of is directly influenced by exactly what steeznson was speaking about?

Why do you believe that anti-drug propaganda only began in the 20th century?

Do you have anything other than wikipedia links to back your stance up? Say, a real study done on the impacts of anti-drug propaganda through the ages which demonstrates that the 20th century was the most militant with it?

Do you know what Religion is, and its impacts on anti-drug mentalities predating the 20th century?

I am most interested in your answer on the last question regarding religion, because you have dodged that one completely while merely touching on the others in your rants.

Is it because to acknowledge religions influence on drug prohibition is to acknowledge that you are wrong about anti drug propaganda “technically” starting in the 20th century just like electricity was “technically” discovered by ancient Greeks?

You’re just so pretentious it twists my stomach.

You should really read that link I commented about “projection”.