Illegal substance use and consequence, which is worse?

Question by kakureranaide: Illegal substance use and consequence, which is worse?
I submit the following, on a per-substance basis, which of the following is the worst consequence.

1) Immediate side-effects (including environmental risks).
2) Risk of addiction.
3) Long-term side-effects.
4) Prosecution by law (being blacklisted for employment, benefits, adoption, scholarships, etc.)

The purpose of this question is to determine the perception of the probability that a person can be fully-functioning member of society and socially responsible though having had used drugs.

How fairly and justly would the following persons being prosecuted for illegal substance use be served?

1) A first-time user by detection (screening).
2) A first-time user by possesion.
3) A regular user. (No outside offenses – assault, petty theft, robbery, vagrancy etc.)
4) A regular user. (With outside offenses)
5) An addict. (Without outside offenses)
6) An addict. (With outside offenses)

When is it a “misdeanor” (out-of-character) or a “felony” (inherently criminal).

Best answer:

Answer by Asshat McPoop
If you want to determine the perception of the probability that a person can be fully-functioning member of society and socially responsible through having used drugs…

… Then find me an addict who does a great job at work instead of looking for ways-and-means to get high.

Here’s a website for you to view. Click on “Mother”.

You could argue that the kid functions. He can talk, walk, steal, hit and make rational decisions. By all accounts, he “functions”.

Give your answer to this question below!