All drugs should be legal to sell, produce, distribute, and to be consumed by consenting adults.

Negative liberty does not lead to anarchy. Negative Liberty requires some governmental force to protect peoples liberties. Liberties do not exist if there is no protection of these liberties. The government has the duty to protect the Lives, Liberty, and Property of all of its citizens. I would also accept some very mild interference so long as it benefits all people (roads). In fact, the idea of negative liberty, as far as I interpret it does include exactly what you speak of. Freedom from arbitrary restraints on liberty. Our constitution supports the idea of liberty though the philosophy of negative liberty. Your rights of private property stop when those rights interfere with the rights of others. Your right to have a gun is absolute until you use that gun to harm somebody else. Taking seat belts out of a car hurts nobody, however no headlights arguably causes a danger to other people. I agree that violent behavior will not suddenly stop if drugs were legalized. However, some crime might drop. There is a lot of crime around drug use, gangs, etc- just as crime was involved in the production of alcohol (the mob). This crime will essentially disappear if drugs were legalized. Drugs would be created by corporations rather than the gang leader. There will still be people who take drugs, and while on those drugs harm somebody while under the influence of them. I have no issue with the statistic that people who are on drugs commit crimes. I agree, people who are on some drugs may be more susceptible to crime than those who are not on them. There are at least two major issues that should be taken into consideration here regarding whether or not they (the drugs) should be made illegal. The first being that while these drugs may make some people more violent, is this true for absolutely every case? If not, you are harming somebody for the simple possibility of crime. These people chose to take the drugs and are responsible for every bad thing that comes out of this. This is true for other vises or even other drugs you do not wish to be made illegal. Alcohol can cause you to behave violently, that is why you must use alcohol responsibly in order to avoid arrest (arrest for murder, or some such.) Many people can use alcohol responsibly. If you can not, and end up hurting somebody that is your fault for using the drug, not the drugs fault for existing. Every action you take has the possibility of causing harm to another individual. Spending your money frivolously can cause you to wish to rob, but that is not illegal. The second being The people who commit crimes while high tend to be naturally violent, or have tendencies of violence. Correlation does not mean causation. perhaps the people high on drugs are already people with weak mental states that would have otherwise committed some violence later, while not on drugs, regardless of their ingestion of drugs. I believe my poor situation still stands. The idea of yours is preventing liberties of other people simply for the POSSIBILITY of committing actual crime in the future. Both are generally avoidable, drug use and being poor. Sure, poor people do not want to be poor- but they do tend to commit more crime. Should we allow these dangerous poor people to live? Well of course, because not all poor people commit crime and we can not make the vast assumption that they are all going to harm us- because they won't. You bring up the fact that you would like to prevent these from being illegal, but not make things already legal illegal? Why? Is it because that would take away from a precious need we all have- liberty? A very key point to the philosophy of Liberty I brought up earlier is the concept of self ownership. You own your body, and you can do what you want with your body so long as that does not harm somebody else. Drug use does not necessarily harm anybody else, however murder necessarily does. The benefit from changing this status quo is Liberty. The benefit of simple liberty is far above the 'benefits' you might receive from not allowing people to excersize this liberty.