if the risks were mitigated (can never be eliminated) you would be okay(-ish) with drugs other than alcohol being used?

i am not sure. if there is evidence that the risks are at least as low as those of alcohol, maybe. but, even for alcohol i consider the risks to high still. drunk driving, domestic violence and many other things are potentially caused by drugs or alcohol, and reducing these requires reducing the use of alcohol or drugs. however banning them is not effective, and so i see other measures such as better education as important to address those problems.

> the issue here is that apart from personal injury, horseriding has no side-effects or longterm consequences.

The whole point is about personal injury! And how that can ripple out to affect others.

If you objected to drugs, it has to be on a rational basis of risk, and by that measure the papers point was, we are not measuring and responding to risk proportionately.

but that's the big difference. horse riding accidents seldom have a ripple effect, drug and alcohol use almost always do. my focus in on the latter. i don't care what someone does to themselves, but i do care how it affects others.

your personal freedom ends where it starts to restrict my freedom. if my partner comes home drunk and starts beating me or the kids, and if banning alcohol is the only way to stop that, then by all means, i'd rather ban alcohol than give you the freedom to drink. (that's assuming that such a ban would work, which is questionable in itself)

the risks from drug use have to be minimized. but i also see the need to make some drugs legal in order to better control the quality and steer people away from bad quality drugs that are even worse.

if it was possible, i'd rather eliminate drugs and alcohol (and smoking) completely. since that is not possible i'll settle for whatever solution has the least negative effects on society (not on the individual).

do you think [avoiding alcohol] is the correct decision for everybody?

alcohol and stress do not mix. so yes. if you are stressed (severely and continuously), you should avoid alcohol as a way to seek relief. but the point for me is that never having consumed alcohol is what is protecting me from trying it to relieve stress now. that's not a decision i made, but something i could only learn from my parents, and i have to thank them for that.

I have a delightful range of physical and mental health problems, and when I go out, which is sadly not often, I really need to make it count, to stop myself deteriorating further mentally

i don't want to try to diagnose, or propose how you should deal with your problems, but i wish that there would be more resources available to you than just self-medicating with drugs or alcohol. i do accept that likely there aren't any other options for you though, so i understand your choice here. but that doesn't mean that legalizing drugs is the best answer to these problems, but it's unfortunately probably the cheapest.

are you willing to project and enforce that attitude onto other people?

project and teach people that alcohol and gambling are bad? absolutely. but enforce only when it actually (provably) helps to reduce harm on society.

the problem here generally is that many people want to code their preferred attitude into law, when in many cases that is not useful. instead they should share and teach (without pressure), but allow everyone to make their own choices.

But what should be the social consensus, your position or mine or something else?

social consensus should be whatever has the most benefit and the least harm for society as a whole.

What I'm saying is that as a society we either forbid things or make them legal then go bloody mental in abusing them. My currently rather liberal position on drugs will have to contend with this kind of stupidity if we do legalise.

exactly, that's a problem we are facing. the only way out is better education. i think we are pretty much in agreement here.

What are the benefits of horseriding, if exercise then there are other safer ways of getting that. If it's the responsibility of looking after an animal, get a cat or a dog (and that option is much more widely available than owning a horse – we could never have afforded it). What are those benefits?

as i mentioned before, i am not at all concerned about the risks to the individual partaking in an activity of their choice. i am only concerned about risks to others. that makes horseriding almost risk free. in fact, since my wife was always afraid of dogs due to a childhood incident, to her, dogs are more dangerous than horses. dogs can bite, cats can scratch, horses can throw you off or kick you. etc. different animals have different temperaments, and which animal or activity is right for someone is very individual. you can easily construct a scenario where horseriding is simply the most practical choice, compared to other options a person has available. horseriding is just one of many options on a large spectrum, and does not even stand out in risk for the individual as there are other even riskier activities.

as an aside

"I suspect most people will be surprised that riding is such a dangerous activity"

i am surprised that people are surprised. i haven't learned riding, but i have rode on a horse once or twice. you are so high up and horses are so strong that to me the potential for injuries is no surprise at all.