Deaths caused by drunk driving can be attributed, in part, to people who support staunch drug policy

"DUI'S ARE CLEARLY A PHENOMENON MORE COMMON TO YOUNGER PEOPLE." I'm not sure this is entirely true, but lets suppose that it is for the sake of the argument. Another phenomenon is also common to young people -- crashes. This is also attributed to being "young and stupid," which is why insuring young motorists is so expensive. But the point is, imagine if we were to go by your rationale, which is essentially tantamount to, "Well, they're going to do it anyway, so might as well let them." Imagine if we simply let children make all decisions for themselves, even if they are not of the age of consent. Should we then allow your 9 yr old daughter to smoke crack because she wants to, and should we allow your 4 yr old to drive because he sees daddy doing it, and he just wants to emulate you? There are lines of demarcation for a reason. There are boundaries for a reason. The total abrogation of them does not stop it, it encourages it. "YOU ARE SUPPORTING POLITICIANS WHO SUPPORT THE WAR ON DRUGS, WHICH COSTS..." It sounds as if you are one of the people that believes that legalizing drugs, even hard drugs, will eliminate drug cartels if the US government manufactures/grows the drugs and distributes them all over the nation. Some posit that this will free up most prisons, as some point out that the majority of prisoners are in on drug charges to begin with. Some feel that once the middle man is removed and money is no longer an issue, the greed that controls the underground drug market will all but fade away, helping to reduce crime overall. This is a very brief synopsis of the overall argument. Listening to his argument, it was very persuasive in that it almost sounds crazy enough to work. My contention is that the argument is far too idealized and over-simplified to the point of incredulity on my part. I believe you are simplifying the argument to perfect-world scenarios. Its kind of like Communism, in that, on paper I can't find one thing I dislike about it. But as we all know from experience, communism will only work in a utopian society-- it doesn't create the utopian society itself. Its an oversimplification of simplistic for such a complex issue. Here are my points: I agree that if the US made its own drugs and distributed them for free, it would all but shut down the cartels, at least in the US. However, in order to subsidize this measure, it requires money from taxes-- our taxes. A goal of this magnitude would cost a small fortune because as we all know, there is nothing in life that is truly free. It will be free for the disenfranchized, but will cost middle America a fortune. Secondly, if the US becomes the only nation that supports this, the US will be the major exporter of drugs around the world. If we know anything about human nature, its that we will find a way to bastardize something good and exploit it for monetary gain. I only mention putting cartels out of business, because if the US just allows for all drugs to be legal, they profit in the order of trillions, as opposed to millions illicitly. You then don't take away the problem of violence, but you increase it. So lets assume that we not only make legal, but also subsidize it. Think of the size of surplus drugs, because we have no idea what the quantity of narcotics would be necessary to support the drug habit of a few million Americans. Dealing will still be an issue. Case in point: I don't do drugs, but lets say I tell the government that I do. The people with the drug addictions will no doubt be given an allotment. When they run out, people like me will use that to our advantage and sell our supply to the addicts. It will be the exact same problem except that now it will be state sanctioned drug dealing. I could make so much money of the appetite of those who 'need their fix.' The next issue is the astronomical effects on healthcare. Thousands upon thousands of Americans die each year from lung cancer due to nicotine and carcinogens contained in tobacco products. Legalizing it has done nothing to abate the problem. NOTHING! But awareness has. Where to get the money? Some say that the revenue of closing down prisons will be used to subsidize the project, but they conveniently neglect the impact on healthcare, particularly those in favor of socializing medicine -- which also becomes the burden of the already overtaxed taxpayer. Overdose patients are already a problem. Imagine how many more people will be dying from legalized drugs? Imagine the impact it will have on transportation safety as people are essentially encouraged to drive impaired. Mind you that NO other country on Earth, not even Holland, has jumped onboard with this? I If complete legalization was worth the trouble I think at least one nation would have implemented this. In closing, I think it would fall flat on its face. Its too idealized to have any practical application. Its worth mentioning that I am not in support of a "staunch drug policy." I am actually in favor of a more lax drug policy, especially concerning marijuana and for simple possession. But I am in favor of some laws, especially those that aggressively target the major suppliers.