"Jim Macklin" writes:

Because children do not have the mental development needed to make the
rational choice about the medical and social effects of drug use.

Outside the category of infants, children have the same mental development as
adults. And people who use drugs are usually handicapped mentally in some
way, no matter how old they are.

I would arrest, try and execute any person who provided recreational drugs
to children, whether it was smoked, drunk, or injected.

If you've already decided to execute them, why bother with the trial part?

I know adults who give beer to their infants and toddlers. Do you suggest
that these adults be executed?

That includes alcoholic drinks.

See above. Does it include fermented hot apple cider, egg nog, tiramisu, and
so on?

Teens can give a drunk a few dollars for beer and get all
the alcohol they want. If the penalty was death, the children would not be
able to get the drunk to buy them beer or hard liquor for the bottle as
payment.

What's wrong with them obtaining alcoholic beverages? Isn't it a bit
hypocritical for adult drug abusers to complain when their children make the
same stupid mistakes that they are making?

Same thing for the drug pusher selling to children. If you're 18, and want
drugs, it should be cheap, the black-market makes drugs expensive and makes
the gang violence.

What changes at age 18?

Public intoxication should result in arrest and time in the "tank" and OD,
you die, no extraordinary tax money should be spent to save lives that were
unwanted and discarded.

While I tend to agree about overdoses, why should public intoxication result
in arrest, assuming that it creates no danger for others and no disturbance of
the peace?