The War on Drugs is unconstitutional, immoral, and a complete failure

I feel rather silly beginning an argument with no introduction. I wasn't sure one was needed, but I do have a short point to make here - you wish for someone to demonstrate that your argument is flawed. I don't believe that your argument or premise is inherently flawed, but perhaps too inflammatory. I believe you can defend most of your argument, but I don't believe you can actually achieve that type of unilateral solution I infer you're attempting. 1) I feel you haven't appropriately responded to my objections about using my political power of the vote to propagate what I believe to be the best course of action to protect myself against the burden that crashed druggies represent to the medical care system. It's not a case of the government intervening in a personal health decision - it's the government intervening to reduce the burden on taxpayers. Of course, I expect you to hammer me here with the monetary burden of the WoD - That could be better managed, yes, but if I recall, the institutions responsible for the WoD would exist anyway, regardless of the status of a WoD. 2) Yes - police officers arrest people who have broken the law. Pushing aside the fact that drug possession is illegal, I'll try to focus on the abstract. Lets revisit the man with the gun in the mall. Suppose he has handguns instead (and a carry permit, of course, and this isn't Illinois or someplace with weird gun laws, etc...). He walks down the street - public property - with 8 handguns strapped to him. Should not the police at least stop and question him? He represents an imminent possible danger to society, even though he's committed no crime yet. In the same fashion, if someone high on cocaine is walking down the street (remember - opiates tend towards violence) should he not be stopped and questioned as well for the danger he represents? Does he need to actually attack someone before the police act? I shall concede my bomber was a poor example. Although possession of the materials necessary to make a decent bomb is not illegal... Let me ask you if the ends justify the means when you legalize drugs... Does the end (free drug use) justify the means (legalization and the resulting massive increase in underage abuse)? Should we create an unjust situation for members of society that want to damage themselves, or should we create an unjust situation for the familial structure and our children? 3) I would argue that family values are generally moral values regarding the end of keeping a balanced and friendly family unit. If we are not able to use societal values, and not able to use family values, what value system are we to adopt? I think before you argue against using a certain value system, you need to present an objective value system for us to use. Who determines what a "just state" is? Whose opinion in that regard is correct? In a social contract, you agree to abide by the decision of the majority - if you argue that the majority decision is not valid, then you remove yourself from the social contract. When removed from the social contract, it doesn't matter WHAT you do (in some sense), as long as you don't do it within the same social sphere. I'll respond briefly here to your four objections... 1) Lots of drugs that would be on the streets lowering the price for the consumer are now in the hands of the government. 2) Good - we're holding them somewhere - now lets put them in rehab. 3) In grandma's case, you have me here. In 14-yr old Johnny's case... he's a minor... his parents are in control of that. 4) You say that like it's a bad thing. I'd want to know if I was hiring someone who was damaging themselves with drugs - it's a drain on my business' human capital. "I bet we could put drug dealers out of business overnight by legalizing drugs and putting strict controls on them instead, and when junkies hit rock bottom we can set up places where they can use in the presence of professionals who can detain them temporarily until they sober up, so they don't hurt anyone else." This contradicts what you later say ("I won't defend an overnight strategy"), but I have a different problem with it - who is going to pay for these places and professionals? The junkies can't afford it. As a taxpayer, I'm not likely to vote for that sort of institution. By the definition of morality we agreed upon, you are correct in that simply being high does not create an unjust situation in society. I don't believe that being high, which damages the body, creates a just state for the individual. In the end, however, I think that's a matter of personal preference though - you may believe being high and damaging one's body is not unjust at all. My quote was intended to draw out the difference between Prohibition and drug control. Modern drugs in society are vastly different from the problems caused by alcohol. You seem to be adopting a unilateral stance against the illegalization of drugs because you perceive them to violate the rights of the individual. But I argue that society is more important. When the individual releases himself from the holds and damage that drugs have on the body, then, as Lincoln said, we shall save our country.