@HFCampo: Now accept the fact that you were mistaken in literally calling for the death of all drug users and get back to a reasonable argument about drugs and the death penalty. It's really okay to do this, HFCampo, everybody overstates things without thinking sometimes, and there will be more damage done to your ego by not rethinking and restating your position than by admitting you went over the top. Other people's opinions and arguments really can improve your own thinking, they are not necessarily personal attacks - the point is not about 'winning', it's about mutual learning.
I write this not only for HFCampo, but for others who seem to think discussions, even arguments, are duels to the death, or perhaps will lead to ego-dissolution or something.
Right: it's off topic. Maybe somebody will think I shouldn't have said this. Maybe they are right - if so, say so, I'll probably pull through the enormous shame of having made a mistake, I've been getting used to it for years.

HFCampo: perhaps you should note that the laws you refer to about cannabis are only US laws - brings up a suspicion I have that at least some of the Americans on these forums seem often to be unconsciously assuming that foreigner = American. Are they living in an American bubble in Kunming? I'm not accusing anyone in particular, but I see evidence of this syndrome here quite a lot, sometimes almost to the point where it seems that foreigner = westerner = US American.
As for drugs, I think that killing people is a bigger problem than drug use, which doesn't usually involve killing anybody, though it often does when substances are made illegal (e.g., people with brutal attitudes involved in the illegal drug business, rather than, say, legal corporations making drones, napalm, etc.)

@HFCampo: Everybody affects everybody else, what's so special about casual drug users?
When you want drug users all to be killed, do you want the state you don't respect to do the killing?
I'm still not sure whether you are just putting us on.
And if this is indeed 'the only solution to the problem', I suggest we not solve it.
As for drug users contributing nothing to society, how many artists, musicians, writers and scientists would I have to name? Perhaps you'd suggest that they'd contribute more if they weren't using 'drugs' - I'm not sure you'd be right about that, but I'll entertain it as a possibility. Killing them will put an end to their drug use, that's for sure - at what cost?

@HFCampo: Your original comment: maybe what you say is the best argument for not thinking about everything, including drug policy, as a 'war', which is largely an American weirdness, doubtlessly associated with the nature of US foreign policy on too many occasions to need giving examples (oddly enough, US authorities very often disguise their actual wars (invasions, hired soldiers, weapons, bombs, death, etc.) as something else (police actions, military assistance, pacification, etc.)).

@HFCampo: trouble is that I don't think you wrote very clearly. E.g., drug 'problems' are government projects: are you talking about governments running program that encourage drugs, or government conducting programs to suppress them, or what? And what do you mean to say that governments sponsor disease and death - you seem to mean a conflict with health/medical programs, and that pot somehow interferes with them. Or do you mean something about doctors wanting the right to prescribe drugs restricted to themselves?
@blobbles & anybody else who might listen: for God's sake get out of the habit of turning (or faking) honest disagreement with somebody into personal attacks and insults. And who the hell cares about the word troll, or how it might be defined, anyway? Put me down as a committed volunteer troll, however defined, and be done with it.