I believe a society where one is not free to use one's body however they see fit is not worth living in, and not worth keeping together. It should be opposed and sabotaged at every turn, dismantled, and remembered as an example of how good intentions can create monsters.

>I hate this "live and let live" type thinking with drugs because it enables people to ruin their lives.

Yes, one of the consequences of self-determination is that you're able to make wrong choices. You know what doesn't make any wrong choices? Cattle. The farmer decides for his cattle what and when they eat, where they sleep, when they mate and who with, and when they die. It's completely impossible for a cow to make choices so wrong that it ruins its own life. Now, I personally don't find living like cattle to be very appealing, but perhaps you disagree.

This is what your mentality creates by the way: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/15682375482748641... At some point you have to be pragmatic and realize that some mental illnesses can't be fixed with more freedom. Some people need boundaries and structure in their lives or they'll make society worse for everyone. A responsible society provides said structure for those people who need it, and lets the ones who don't be free as you claim they should be.

I'm not sure what you're pointing out in particular. The homelessness or the fighting? Homelessness is caused by poverty, not by drugs. People fight, with or without drugs. If you don't want to see people fighting in public places, you need a police force patrolling the streets that will actively break up fights, or you need a culture where people will intervene in fights they're not involved in and break them up. It would appear San Francisco has neither.

>At some point you have to be pragmatic and realize that some mental illnesses can't be fixed with more freedom.

I'm fine with a world with more than the absolute minimum number of mentally ill people. Put another way, there are things that are not worth sacrificing in order to have fewer mentally ill people.

>A responsible society provides said structure for those people who need it, and lets the ones who don't be free as you claim they should be.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the goal of a society is to organize efforts in order to accomplish tasks that would not be possible by individuals or smaller groups. "Providing structure to those who need it" seems more like the responsibility of a hospital, not of societies in general. While a society that works like a hospital (rather than merely containing them) is conceivable, I think asserting that one that doesn't is irresponsible is going too far.

>I'm fine with a world with more than the absolute minimum number of mentally ill people. Put another way, there are things that are not worth sacrificing in order to have fewer mentally ill people.

Cool, that's your opinion. It has been tried. Your opinion creates the tweet I linked as well as this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB6gwOBClwE. I can post many more videos like these as there are plenty.

My opinion is that your principles are completely idiotic and they're not worth sacrificing other people's well being for. You disagree, that's fine. But you're obviously and verifiably wrong based on the state of reality and anyone with two eyes and a brain can see it.

The state of reality is more complex than "drugs are bad m'kay". Drug use and addiction are symptoms, not the disease. Cure the disease and you cure the symptoms.

No, it actually is that simple. Recreational drugs that significantly change your state of mind and that create chemical dependencies (this includes alcohol), or that permanently make you mentally ill are, in fact, bad, and their careless use should be shunned.

Bring on the temporary mental illness!