People who have had some experience with it are their strongest opponents.
The context here is clear. It is not about medicinal "drugs" which should be obvious. If you have need to split terminological hairs then you does not understand the context, and if you do then this makes your argument unhonest and invalid.
> any discussion that doesn't distinguish between pot, LSD, heroin etc is just pointless.
No, that is any discussion that calls for general drug legalization because "some of them are not that bad".
> People who have had some experience with it are their strongest opponents.
Rather depends what you mean by "it". I've know many addicts and I've known many people who have enjoyed drugs recreationally with no long-term ill effects. And plenty of people in-between the two extremes.
> Any drug with side effects should be, of course, criminalized, if we want healthy individuals and a functioning society.
This is a bizarre statement, even ignoring my pedantry about your use of the word "drug".
Any recreational drug?
Any side effects?
It's hard to understand what you really mean because taken literally this would be a really odd stance to take. So I presume you don't mean what you seem to be saying. Therefore I don't really know what you're saying.
The context here is clear. It is not about medicinal "drugs" which should be obvious. If you have need to split terminological hairs then you does not understand the context, and if you do then this makes your argument unhonest and invalid.
> any discussion that doesn't distinguish between pot, LSD, heroin etc is just pointless.
No, that is any discussion that calls for general drug legalization because "some of them are not that bad".