All drugs of all classifications should be legal.

Due to character limits on replies I will only part quote the argument I am refuting, my apologies. "It's not the job of the federal government to monitor what I do with my body." Actually it is, the governments' job, in part is to protect the individual and if necessary, protect them from themselves. If Liberty infringes on Life or Happiness, it can't be, if Life infringes on Happiness or Liberty, it can't be, if Happiness infringes yours or others Liberty and Life, it can't be. "I hate meth. I think it's a terrible ..." You are changing your debate premise here. "Drugs should be legal, there is no moral or logical reason to make them illegal." The only instance where you use the word "most" is in reference to drug addiction. The model I gave, is a drug addiction model, not meth addiction model, it applies to all drugs of use. Drugs become addictive the same ways, the class and type are only malleable factors within that addiction. For the more natural based drugs, shrooms, salvia etc, there is no base line for easy measurement of safe use, the person's physiology; past experience and setting are far too varied and unique to ensure a safe use episode. I should point out that personal experience is hardly a valid basis for a logical argument, it is a basic inductive reasoning error. "That's the taxation income for cigarettes..." For that to work 1. Remarked increase in drug use. 2. You are now advocating heavy use within the population. 3. Heavy use equals significant health problems. 4. You have now advocated a major health crisis. 5. Costing the government more money in health care. 6. The price of drugs has now gone up due to taxation. 7. Undercutting government pricing will occur. 8. People will now be risking poor control quality over cost ratios. 9. Poor quality is an increased risk factor for health. 10. Work quality will decrease. 11. Costing company's money because of heavy users. 12. Influencing economy. Example: during the industrial revolution where alcohol consumption was not regulated, resulting in injury, lost time and economic down turn. "Quote me studies..." I never said all drugs are bad, I said they cause harm, in most instances repairable. Drugs are a compound that produces physiological and psychological changes normally by effecting neurotransmitter action in the case of the latter. Any label such as "good" or "bad" is a purely subjective one. I did not label MA as bad; I merely provided sound reasons why the government legislates against it. "But if you EDUCATE THE PEOPLE ..." "Despite intensive eradication ..." All you have done is shown the spending to be at best, ineffectual; you have not explained at all why legalisation is a more beneficial alternative to the states needs. Education of drug use effects, combined with illegalisation, programs designed to change social norms of behaviour combined with illegalisation all provide a better alternative than carte blanche legalisation. You are advocating open support of a need instead of responsible management. For future reference on validity of information and data provided, .org sites are not consistent with data. They carry biases trained on their intent and do not constitute as a proper, valid source. "Some people have addictive personalities..." There is no strong evidence for an "addictive personality" it is a behavioural expression of maladaptive thinking, reasoning, risk taking, and cue activation. As such, behaviours can be minimised and unlearnt. You also appear to be under the erroneous assumption I am advocating prohibition on all drug classes, not at all, I am just stating that not all drugs should be legalised. "Granted some drugs like..." There are users that don't get addicted, and yes there are those users that do. De-legalising does not change the addiction process. Prison time does not automatically exclude a rehabilitation program. Reasons why it's illegal do not only stem from individual harm, but from harm the individual causes his environment as well. Work ethic, being one of them, and if there is no work ethic, the dropping of his socio-economic status (deeming him pretty much useless to society and the government, and useless for the state to even protect. It's a partnership; the state is not your father. You both have contracts). Again you are advocating the very thing you are arguing against, for the state to implement rehabilitation programs you are saying they have a duty of care to the individual, above the rights of the individual themselves. "Besides, examine the chemical makeup..." You are right to a degree, drugs are ‘neutral' when it comes to addiction, however, drug use and interaction (drug effect) is where addiction processes occur. Non use would solve that of course, but since you are advocating, drugs as an agent of use does not lead to addiction, we can continue. The majority of neuronal firing due to drug action occurs within the Tegmentum, occipital, and some pre frontal cortex regional spreading. Reward from psychomotor stimulants and from opiates appears to involve activation of the same brain reward system as that activated by electrical stimulation. Dopamine, and GABA are the neurotransmitters most consistently linked with reward from these drugs, and the ventral tegmental neurotransmitter system is specifically involved in psychomotor stimulant and opiate rewards. Other drugs serve as reinforcers (e.g., alcohol, barbiturates, caffeine, marijuana, and nicotine) also activate the ventral tegmental dopamine system. Furthermore, abstinence from cocaine or from morphine after repeated administration may decrease dopamine levels in this brain system (Bozarth, 1989; Rossetti, Hmaidan, & Gessa, 1992)Use leads to tolerance>higher drug levels for same effect. "5.Google "cancer marijuana..." One large study that showed the cancer causing effects of marijuana smoke may be negated by THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke which may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation. A respectable scientist knows findings and studies need to be redone to be verified, so whilst it is a promising finding it is by far an absolute. The author of the study still says "while I still believe marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought." "Myths are myths. I'm talking about STUDIES." The only time I mention myths are in relation to your familial example of...marijuana myths, and as to why that serves a reason for legalisation where cheaper effective education would suffice. "Even so, the federal government ..." Drug studies are done by recruiting drug users. No study recruits non users and administers drugs. There is a phenomenal amount of literature on drug users. You may need to try harder than googling next time. Most literature resides in publications. "No. If drugs were legalized tomorrow..." Another erroneous assumption, even assuming local companies produce and distribute, there is still a vested interest for both local and off shore operations to under value the local market. Case in point, movies are sold in the U.S., doesn't mean Americans don't buy pirated movies. "All of my points are very "mute" or did you mean moot..." 1. Mute: to silence, your points have been silenced. 2. Questioning my credibility over an erroneous mistake on your behalf, shows little more than an immature jibe 3. Statements to the effect of "I win" during debating period contravenes this sites rules of conduct. 4. My closing statement first round was after your posting without a reference, exempting a quote. How is that anything other than opinion? I have clearly distinguished what is opinion and fact by reputable referencing. 5. QED. ~ quod erat demonstrandum: that which was to be demonstrated. You have solved nothing to use QED. You have not used logical deduction to come to a valid conclusion. Your logic is flawed.