It's not an American style of life, but I'm sure it's attractive to a lot of people who simply aren't into drugs, partying, or living the high life.
One night went up to the bar on the roof (god damn the drinks were pricey) clearly ultra wealthy peeps up there, group of very wealthy looking Africans with a magnum of champagne openly smoking weed.
But being a selfish prick is a privilege, not a right. Why do you feel entitled to do shitty things that make your city a worse place for everyone?
Drugs aren't linked to violence unless you make laws to link them.
Like I said, I would not care if druggies were decent people who just wanted to get high sometimes. However, unfortunately that is not how it works in the reality. They are the worst kind of people and I have zero sympathy for them after all the shit I've seen them do.
...are we still having to go over this?
There are no such people. Everybody does drugs, unless you adopt a definition of "drug" which is designed specifically to accommodate this assertion, rather than apply in some useful way to reality. It's difficult to even create a definition of 'drug' which convincingly excludes survival necessities like water and oxygen, but remains otherwise consistent.
There are some drugs which are, for reasons varying from racism to capriciousness to an intemperant desire for greater cartel income, prohibited to varying degrees in various jurisdictions.
You can go to Singapore and consume sugar, coffee, nicotine, alcohol, and many other drugs while enjoying the tacit endorsement of your behavior by the local state apparatus. You can also consume cocaine, opioids, and plenty of other drugs so long as you pay black market rates and do so shielded by privilege so as not to run afoul of an investigation. You can even consume cannabis, though of course it is very difficult to smuggle, so you pay a higher premium.
If so, isn't that begging the question? If a person wants to go to a place where drugs are prohibited, and "drug" is defined as a substance which is prohibited, then doesn't every jurisdiction qualify?
If a person "simply isn't into drugs", with "drugs" defined by the local state, isn't that person just in favor of the state-prescribed diet? And it really has nothing to do with drugs?
If such a person goes from a place where drug X is prohibited to one where it is not, does their preference suddenly change?
One better: if a person goes from a place where drug X is prohibited to one where it is compulsory, do they suddenly fall in love with the drug?
Of course not. Because nobody's preferences work that way. Ergo, there is no actual real human who meets the critera, "simply isn't into drugs" upon close examination.
Sure, there may be people who are pro-prohibition, but I imagine nearly all of them are in a position to financially gain from it. In terms of outcomes, it's horrible policy, especially if a target is reduction of death and disease from drug use.
So why are they not considered drugs? Is it because of literally the comment you responded to?