Drug Prohibition in the United States

I actually dislike the drug war and would like to see it gone, but I think I can make a debate from the other side. [quote] "The so called ‘War on Drugs' is both irrational and immoral. The United States continual dedication to it wastes over $40 billion a year while ruining lives in the process." [/quote] First I will make my points, then I'll see if I can refute yours. 1) The ‘War on Drugs,' is not immoral in totality. Taking this definition of immoral into account, "not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics." http://dictionary.reference.com... As a society and socially the standard established principle is that drug use is bad, and should therefore be fought, by making it illegal and punishing those distributing it or consuming it. Therefore socially it is not immoral to have the ‘Drug war'. Many people have seen first hand the extreme detrimental effects certain drugs can have not only on the consumer but those close to the consumer. Some of these people believe the ‘Drug war,' and punishing drugs is protecting people. They might believe that to not support the ‘Drug war' would cause people to suffer. To them it would be immoral to allow others to suffer. They've established a moral that you should try to not help people and do things to prevent suffering. Side note: If that definition of ‘immoral' is not suitable for you then please post a different one. 2) The definition of ‘irrational' is, "without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason." The definition of ‘reason' is, "a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event." Using these two definitions I would say that the drug war is not ‘irrational,' because the drug war has a purpose and people have reasons to support it. For example person A supports the drug war because someone she knew abused a drug and that caused unknowing negative consequences and suffering for both the persona busing and the people the person abusing the drug should have been taking care of (for example his children). Her reason to support the drug war is that she does not want children to become victims of negative side effects due to drug use. You may think the reason is a bad one, or that she is being oppressive, or that she is generalizing, but it is still a reason and it is still justifiable to her. Side note: for the definitions same goes, if you don't like them say so. 3) I think I'll allow you to define what you mean by ‘waste'. Yes the government denying people the ability to use certain chemicals could be seen as depriving them of the Constitution right to pursue happiness, however this Debate isn't about whether Drug prohibition or the Drug war is constitutional, it is about whether or not it is irrational and immoral. At least I hope that is what it is about because that's what I think it is about… : The ability for children to get illegal drugs would not change if those drugs became legal for those over 18. The black market would still be there to provide children with drugs. Cigarette use decreasing can't be contributed to an end to advertising to children, correlation does not mean causation. Recently cigarettes have been well know to cause cancer and be very unhealthy, this fact has been spread like wild fire, and is all over the place, so much so that pretty much every know it. I could just as equally argue that that is the cause of decrease in cigarette use not less advertising. Drug dealers whoa re in jail can't distribute or sell drugs.