Drugs must be made legal

"Now I shall explain why less people take Drugs to alcohol and tobacco..."Thanks, but that's not necessary (and those examples were only so-so anyways). I'm fully aware why someone would not take drugs. I really fail to see what this has to do with furthering your point. I could make almost the same exact list with alcohol, or smoking, or skydiving. There's more than a few reasons why someone would not want to do dangerous things. Its potency is hardly relevent in this case-- dangerous is dangerous is dangerous, and the reasons remain the same."Why would people take drugs for charity?"Below, I have provided a list of the ten strangest things ever done for charity. Some of them far out-weird simply doing drugs. (1)"My point was that people took huge risks that involve huge amounts of effort like climbing cliffs or mountains where as taking heroin is effortless..."Your reasonings are grasping at straws. One: Effort made to do something should have absolutely nothing to do with how 'bad' something is for you. That does not make any sense. Two: Mountain climbing is just as easy as taking heroin. The dangers associated with each is equivalent to your practice. I could literally go to the nearest mountain and start climbing. Odds are I wouldn't make it. I could go to my local drug dealer and score some heroin. Odds are I wouldn't make it. However, I could practice and practice with these things and be a total pro at both."My point about such a great corruption in America about alcohol being made illegal is that alcohol is not nearly as dangerous as drugs..."No, people got mad because they had their drug of choice (alcohol) taken away. Your reasoning for why alcohol shouldn't be illegal rests on two things: One, everyone drinks, and is thus okay. This is irrelevant, because the amount of people doing something shouldn't factor into its legal status. Like I said last round, if everyone started doing heroin, this wouldn't make it automatically okay. Two, you say that alcohol "is not nearly as dangerous as drugs..." This is bunk. Alcohol is the single most harmful drug of them all. Yes, all drugs. This means it outranks tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, LSD, shrooms, ecstasy, meth, speed, GHB, crack, and, yes, even heroin. Yes, they also factor in the fact that illicit drugs are not as common. If this doesn't speak to how messed up our system is, nothing will. (2)"But you are right saying that we can do whatever we want putting in substances in our bodies but in this point you forget the idea that it would involve giving money to drug dealers."...this doesn't make any sense. You concur that we can do whatever we want with our bodies, but you disagree with the fact that someone should make money off of it? I can't refute this point based simply on the fact that it doesn't make any sense. I guess if we made drugs free, you wouldn't have a problem with it."If the people take drugs it is for either curiosity or depression unaware that it would actually kill them... it is the government's duty to make sure that this does not happen."First off, I think it's pretty safe to say that most people know that drugs are bad. Like, I might be wrong, but I seriously doubt it. Second, it is not the government's duty to protect people from doing drugs. It is the state government's duty to protect, according to the Responsibilty to Protect, "populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing." (3) Drug use doesn't really meet any of these criteria. Not by a long shot, actually. Police don't even have an obligation to provide police servies- including protection of citizens (4).If the government does not even have an obligation to protect these people, then what's the point in having drugs be illegal at all?1. http://www.oddee.com...2. http://www.theguardian.com...3. http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...