To be decided.

You argue: "However, look at the obvious consequences of having an unhealthy population (or one that is completely messed up by drugs): - high crime rate - widespread destruction - widespread disease - unhealthy economy (unwiser use of money, more money spent on illegal or prescription drugs, etc.)" However, you have not shown that the war on drugs improves society in any of these areas -- the truth is, it does the opposite. I agreed that illegal drug use is usually unhealthy, but the war on drugs has not been shown to decrease drug use at all. Illegal drugs are currently available nearly everywhere in our society, including schools, and even prisons!! If after decades the "war on drugs" cannot prevent drugs from penetrating even prisons, exactly what is it good for? What's more, it can be clearly shown that the war on drugs actually damages society in each of the ways you list: -High crime rate: In fact, as occured during the prohibition on alcohol, the drug war funnels money into illegal elements of society, including violent gangs, and causes deadly drug wars. Also, consider the huge amount of crime that is committed in order to obtain drugs at artificially inflated prices due to the "war on drugs". And, by ending the war on drugs, law enforcement would be enabled to focus time and money on reducing violent crime, rather than being distracted by going after non-violent drug users. Check out the following link for some more information on the clear link between violent crime and the "war on drugs". http://www.drugwarfacts.org... - Widespread destruction: For all the reasons listed above, the "war on drugs" has contributed to the destruction of society. In addition, it causes the descruction of the family unit, especially in urban centers, which is one of the greatest tragedies. See http://www.hrw.org..., for example. More Americans are incarcerated than ever before, and most of the increase is due to the failed "war on drugs". These are in many cases fathers and mothers who have been ripped away from their families and communities, when they could have instead been treated for their addiction. In fact, enforcement of the "war on drugs" has been highly descriminatory. According to the Human Rights Watch Report: Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System, May 2000 Vol. 12, No. 2 (G), Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of persons convicted, and 74 percent of people sent to prison. The message is, if you're white or wealthy, you get treatment, if you're black or poor, you get jail. - Widespread disease: If anything, the "war on drugs" has increased the spread of disease. Exchange programs that would reduce the repeated use of needles, and therefore the transmission of aids and other blood borne diseases are outlawed, lest they be percieved as encouraging drug use. Letitimate uses of drugs for terminal cancer patients are in most cases illegal, despite the continued legality of much harsher drugs, like morphine. Finally, instead of being able to admit drug use and get help, as is the case for alcoholics (Alcoholics Annonymous), or problem gamblers (Gamblers Annonymous), for example, drug users often cannot get help for fear of being thrown in jail. - Unhealthy economy: This is perhaps the most absurd of your claims. Currently we funnel billions of dollars to drug lords and gangs, throw huge percentages of working members of poor neighborhoods in jail for nonviolent crimes, and spend tens (some estimate hundreds) of billions of dollars per year on the "war on drugs". The federal budget reported at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... shows over 10 billion dollars per year spent, and that does not incude the continued cost of incarceration (more than 1 in 100 americans are now in jail, and more than one in five of those is in for drug related offenses). That means there are more than 500,000 imprisoned on drug related charges, at an annual cost of over $25,000 per prisoner (http://www.usdoj.gov...), adding another 12.5 billion dollars per year. All of this is money that could be used to spur the economy, or provide needed government services. This does not even include local and state costs of cooperating with the federal war on drugs, or the lost salaries of those imprisoned (and often the cost of supporting their families on the public purse), lost taxes that could be collected on legal drugs, etc. All of these effects could easily top 100 billion. Information on spiraling prison costs: http://article.nationalreview.com...= You ask, "When did civil rights have anything to do with it?" I hold, as many do, that the govenment should not use force to impose morality against a person that is not committing any harm against another. It is especially hypocritical when the abuse of alcohol and nicotene are perfectly legal, and are treated medically. You state, "You can't blame it all [budget shortfalls] on drug fighting. Remember that we also spend large amounts of money on the military and public services." Other contributors to budget shortfalls are irrelevant, my point is to show one more benefit of ending damaging drug policies. You quote me and say, ""Drug addiction is a disease, just like alcohol addiction, and it should be treated as such." This contradicts your above statement. If I want to decrease the spending of anti-drug ads to provide money for treatment, it won't help the budget any." Also, ""Drug offenders should be given medical treatment and counciling, instead of jail." This would require even more government spending. Also, where they got the drugs, how they got the drugs, if they deal drugs themselves or not, and what they did while under the influence are all factors in determining punishment, not just the use of drugs alone." There is no contradiction, I quoted a study showing that drug treatment is much more cost effective than imprisonment (did you miss it?). Also, I don't know why you're talking about anti-drug ads - this is not the crux of the war on drugs. Finally, you speak of factors in determining punishment. I don't see what this has to do with the present situation, as I was suggesting counciling and treatment instead of "punishment". You state, "And that [drug wars] is exactly why the government should do something about [the availability of] drugs in general." They have tried for decades, and it has only caused more violence, as it did when they tried a prohibition on alcohol. The fact is, the government can never eliminate the availablility of drugs -- the best thing to do would be to take the supply of those drugs out of the hands of criminal elements. You state, regarding the widespread negative effects of the war on drugs, "The "war on drugs" is to make such policies. Also, the employment problem can be solved by adopting a better plan of welfare." I frankly don't know what you're tring to say in the first part there. The fact that other actions, like welfare reform, may also help solve employment and poverty problems, does not change the fact that eliminating the war on drugs would almost certainly do so -- your statement is totally irrelevant. You say, "That's [youth deliquency due to poor family environments] a different problem. I'm arguing precisely that it is the very same problem, and that the "war on drugs" is ripping our inner cities apart.