>>>>The answer to all of these types of questions is this...
>>>
>>>I think it was more of a retorical question/joke.
>>>
>>>And no, thats not the answer to all of those types of questions.
>>
>>Well, grasshopper, after you've lived a few more years, and if you survive your encounters with stop signs and people who travel perpendicular to you but think the same, we'll talk.
>
>There's a difference between one's decisions which have impact solely on the decision maker, and those which may have impact on others. Driving through red lights is highly likely to have such an impact; DUI also.
>
>OTOH, taking substances may or may not influence others. Alcohol is a dangerous thing in that manner; OTOH, I haven't heard anyone killed anyone else while being under influence of cigarettes, nor that such an argument was mentioned anywhere in court.
>
>Now I really wouldn't know about other things I never tried - there's actually only one little technical question I would like to know: speaking about drugs other than the two I mentioned, what's the difference between use and abuse?

The difference between use and abuse isn't a sharp line, or the same in every circumstance or in every addiction. However, in some situations the line is sharply defined by law, which is created by the will of the people in a free society.

IMO, abuse exists when the user is no longer able to control their use of the substance or their need of the activity.

Some "use" cannot be tolerated at all: child abusers, rapists, cleptomaniacs, and people who have the lives of others in their charge (train engineers, pilots, nuclear plant operators, bus drivers, drug manufacturers, policemen, judges, congressmen, etc.), or anyone operating equipment that could place the lives of others in jepordy. This is not to say, as some suggest, that past use 'taints' a person from occupying such positions, as long as they are not using and will not use substances during their term in office.