The use of cannabis for recreational use by those over 18 should be disallowed by the USG*

Thank you for that interesting answer. Firstly, I'd like to construct this argument so it follows a structure. One, I will outline evidence that suggest why statistics show that "41.8% of the people might have tried cannabis" but only "1.5% of the US population" have tried heroin. That argument will be based on the fact that cannabis is much easier to obtain, and much cheaper too. Secondly, I will give a response to your argument that the government has no right to control the physical, psychological or other damages that we inflict upon ourselves. Lastly, my argument will focus on the gateway theory, or how cannabis has the PROBABILITY to lead to harder drugs, and how we should just avoid the risk altogether. In a study done by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in 2002, "on 68,126 persons aged 12 or older, including 23,645 youths aged 12 to 17", they found that a startling 55% of the youths reported that obtaining marijuana/cannabis was easier, compared to the average 30% of crack and cocaine, and only 18% for heroin. (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov...). This suggests that the availability of cannabis, and its perceived ease of obtaining, may lead to skewed statistics like the one above. That same reasoning can also be applied to tobacco, caffeine and alcohol. Another reason why the statistics that you have obtained maybe skewed is that the costs of cannabis are relatively cheaper, to the point that even if people want to turn to harder drugs, they can't because of the financial constraints. Lets take a look at the evidence provided by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). In the table found in their website (http://stats06.emcdda.europa.eu...), the details of the retail value of cannabis in 2004 for a whole list of European countries are shown. In comparison, the retail value of heroin for the same countries, in the same period of time, can be seen here (http://stats06.emcdda.europa.eu...). Finally, for the sake of thoroughness, the same list except for cocaine can be seen here (http://stats06.emcdda.europa.eu...). The tables show, that heroin and cocaine are significantly more expensive than cannabis. Lets take Hungary for example, 1 gram of cannabis retails at 7.5 - 11.5 Euros, while 1 gram of heroin retails at 38.6 to 56.7 Euros, while 1 gram of cocaine retails at 51.7 - 71 Euros. The averages are: cannabis = 9.6 Euros, heroin = 47.1 Euros and cocaine 60.9 Euros. From this we can see why most people will find it relatively easier to not only purchase, but to access cannabis, thereby increasing its popularity in use. For the next part, I want to tackle the argument you made regarding user's choice in what they take. It is in my humble opinion, a mistake to compare the government's ignorance to how one spends their money, enters a career and their sex life, to the seriousness of drugs. It is a logical fallacy, called hasty generalization, to say that "unless the government is to regulate ... sex life, financial life and their life as a whole... the government has no part in restricting the use of harder drugs", and even more to claim that "the government's duty is to protect you from others, not yourself. The latter statement is flawed off the bat if mentally unstable people are discussed (whom the government could control via parens patriae), but even if mentally capable people are the subject , the government has the right to ensure the safety of the citizens of its nation. You may say: yes from terrorists, yes from other people and yes from enemies of the USA; but how can it even take care of its own citizens without enforcing the laws that will protect themselves from themselves. Drugs are made illicit also with the purpose of protecting oneself from others too, either from an increase of hit and run deaths, or an increase in random acts of violence. By preventing people around you from taking drugs, you yourself are protected from those kinds of consequences that may occur from others. True they are caused by alcohol too, but does that suggest we should add more catalysts of violence in our society, or less? You cannot apply that argument for coffee and tobacco, the government realizes that you can take in as much garbage as you want, as long as you do not harm others, that is why people are not free to smoke in most public places now a days, and coffee is still sold in every Starbucks you can find. If you go so far as suggesting harder drugs be made legal, I will be as hardlined on the opposite end and say, keep the ban on all drugs, and put one on alcohol, lets go back to the prohibition era. To sum that up, I believe that the use of cannabis for recreational use, will not only increase the instances of driving under the influence and random acts of violence, it will also increase the strain on the national budget due to a potential increase in medical spending by the government to treat these victims and users of drugs, and aside from that, there will be more second hand smoke around. While there are studies out there disproving that cannabis has a link to harder drugs, there are equal numbers saying that they do, see: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk...). Therefore, with the confusion and uncertainty that is within the scientific community, why should we take the risk at this uncertain time, to plunge the community into an experiment. What if they do lead to harder drugs you say, I then say that it is obvious what will happen. The population who take marijuana according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, is "14.6 million current users (6.2 percent of the population), with marijuana being marijuana continues to be the most commonly used illicit drug. The study shows that there were an estimated 2.6 million new marijuana users in 2002". (http://www.hhs.gov...) What this means is that even if 50 percent turn to harder drugs, we will have 7.3 million users of harder drugs. If 20 percent turn, we will have 2.92 million harder drugs users. I don't know what number will be deemed acceptable, that is 2.92 million people. We know the costs of these harder drugs, according to the US Department of Justice, "In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...). I hope you can foresee the consequences if the gateway theory proves to be true, I think the risks are definitely not feasible. Some last minute points that you might want to tackle: 1.) Legalizing cannabis will lead to more people taking it, thus being associated with the drug subculture, not excluding the illicit drug market. (meaning they most probably will be in contact with people who take harder drugs, or even feel like they are part of the culture that takes illegal drugs, given they experience the same high) 2.) "Even without the effects of the marijuana gateway, relaxing marijuana prohibitions could affect the incidence of hard drug use by diminishing the stigma of drug use generally, thereby increasing adolescents' willingness to try hard drugs." 3.) Legalization will increase the chances of drugs falling into the hands of kids, such as alcohol being purchased by an adult, leaving it in the refrigerator, and a kid drinking from it. The cannabis, being more casual and legal, can just be left lying around. Hopefully, we stick to the argument of consenting adults. 4.) Ethical issues - (http://en.wikipedia.org...) - Islam, Judaism and Christianity all refer to it as morally wrong, with Judaism saying that God owns our bodies and we shouldn't jepordize it, and Islam prohibiting al