All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

"To legalize toxic poisons is to support death and addiction" - Disagree, I want to legalise many things that I don't support. For example I want free speech to be legal, but that does not mean that I support all types of speeches. I support the legalisation of drugs because I think that people have the total ownership of themselves, but that does not mean that I want or support them doing drugs. I do not support drugs, only the legalisation.-"It is wrong to drive while under the influence of drugs"As stated in my last argument, yes, its wrong to drive under the influence of drugs, because then you are exposing other people with a danger that they did not agree upon. But as long as the user is the only victim, I don't have a problem with it.-"Making something illegal is the best way to get rid of danger"As stated in my last argument, the legalisation would not necessary mean more drug users. How many reading this would start using heroin tomorrow if we legalised it? The truth is that if you want to do drugs today, then you can get it from the black market. - "What you are suggesting here, is a form of legal suicide" Call it what you want! I hold it to be the inalienable right of anybody to go to hell in his or her own way. If people have the ownership of their bodies, then we should not have the right to tell them how to live their lives. I think people have right to their own body. - "ban drugs is to keep the human body safe" I think that we should have learned by now that if we sacrifice freedom for safety, we get neither of them. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can never make it drink", we can always set new laws, but all people will not follow all laws; forcing us to be violent against people who have done nothing to harm another man. - "Cocaine did not become popular because marijuana" The fact that cocaine took people on acid trips, obviously had an impact on the popularity. But the main reason that it got as popular as it did, was because of the high marijuana price. Even if this would not have been true, my argument still stands. Because higher prices on drugs lead to a demand for a new and cheap drug. This is what is happening now, with internet drugs. We don't have time to qualify them as drugs before they have created new drugs. - "if drug dealers develop a new drug, then we simply eradicate that one as well" The problem is that this process is way to slow. When a drug first start to sell, we have not classified it as a drug yet. By the time that a drug get illegal, it has already been sold to hundreds of people, and those people who bought it was not aware of the danger involved. By the time we make a drug illegal, the same process begin. Those internet drugs can kill in minutes. Because there were no real research going into the development of the drug. They simply made a drug as cheap as they could without extra research. - "Lower prices would mean MORE drugs" Yes, lower price would mean more drugs. But the evolution of drugs would be over. Drugs such as internet drugs would not be developed since there would not be a demand for it. People would keep to less dangerous drugs such as marijuana. - Your last arguments had a really interesting base. What you are stating is that you want to live your life without drugs, therefore, nobody else should have the right to live their lives with drugs. This is a 1st amendment type issue. We don't have the 1st amendment so that we can talk about the weather. We have the 1st amendment so that we can say and believe very controversial things. So to say that; yes, I have my religious thoughts protected, but anyone who would like to follow something else should not have. Then we are not really protecting freedom. At the same time we need to be consistent, we need to protect liberty across the board, and not only at the bigger issues. So the same thing goes for drugs. You have your lifestyle without drugs protected, but anyone who would live their lives different does not. That's not freedom.