Actually, I used the meaning of the word to arrive at the conclusion I did, whereas your objection seems to be to the fact that you didn't use that specific word

> You're changing your argument here.

Nope, same argument the whole time: Drug prohibition doesn't work, and it also causes harm. Perhaps it's confusing when I take time to respond to what you're saying specifically?

> You've forgotten what you're trying to prove and you've misunderstood in what sense I'm saying that my statements are consistent.

What a lovely little gotcha this would be if it referred to anything that actually happened.

> You're restating the same false choice.

Nope, I'm describing reality under the status quo of drug enforcement. I'm not talking in hypotheticals, I'm talking about what happened and continues to happen

> It's been real. I'm gonna leave it here. Consider that a win.

I know it's a trite idiom but nothing about this is "real." You, like many on this website, seem to think debate consists of acting smug and trying to find little "gotchas" while making no case whatsoever for your own beliefs. I understand that trying to define, let alone justify, exactly what it is what you believe is pretty hard. Perhaps that's why you'd like state actors to be empowered to make more decisions for people. Maybe people would have better discussions if they didn't think about it in terms of "winning"