To be decided.

"I agree that illegal drugs can be detrimental to a person's health. The government's job, however, is not to force people to have healthy habits . . . " However, look at the obvious consequences of having an unhealthy population (or one that is completely messed up by drugs): - high crime rate - widespread destruction - widespread disease - unhealthy economy (unwiser use of money, more money spent on illegal or prescription drugs, etc.) Obviously, you don't want any of this stuff happening in your country. Also, take note of that last one - an unhealthy economy. One of the purposes of a government is to keep the economy stable. So this does concern the government's job. In addition, having a high crime and disease rate does not help with foreign relations - would you want to have an alliance with a country that can't even keep its own public health and safety in order? And, going back to the economy, how do you expect to receive military or monetary aid from a country that can't even solve its own monetary problems? As I've shown, this concerns public safety and order, a stable economy, and foreign relations, all of which are priorities of the federal government. So to avoid this, the government needs to discourage or outlaw the use of products that may cause it - mainly, drugs. "And, the "war on drugs" is not just a violation of people's civil rights." When did civil rights have anything to do with it? "This, when education, infrastructure, and other important government functions are undergoing widespread budget cuts." You can't blame it all on drug fighting. Remember that we also spend large amounts of money on the military and public services. On a side note, I'd like to know where you got that $40 billion, it seems a little high. "Drug addiction is a disease, just like alcohol addiction, and it should be treated as such." This contradicts your above statement. If I want to decrease the spending of anti-drug ads to provide money for treatment, it won't help the budget any. "Drug offenders should be given medical treatment and counciling, instead of jail." This would require even more government spending. Also, where they got the drugs, how they got the drugs, if they deal drugs themselves or not, and what they did while under the influence are all factors in determining punishment, not just the use of drugs alone. "The same is true of gangs and drugs today -- how many deaths in drug wars could have been avoided -- and how much money is being funneled to nefarious, violent organizations and militias here and overseas because of our poor policies?" And that is exactly why the government should do something about [the availability of] drugs in general. "A policy based on prevention and treatment of drug addiction instead of a "war" would help keep families intact (and help halt the breakdown of inner city communities), reduce the stress on our budgets, reduce the amount of money funneled to violent gangs and mobs, and keep more people productively in the workforce instead of jail." The "war on drugs" is to make such policies. Also, the employment problem can be solved by adopting a better plan of welfare. "How many crimes would have been prevented if more of our inner city youth grew up in two parent homes, for example?" That's a different problem.