All drugs should be legalized for both medical and recreational use.

1) The regulations would, of course, make it so that it would be illegal for adults to introduce minors to drugs. One possible way for this to happen would be only allowing people to use drugs in certain areas or buildings where one must present ID, or some other form of identification to show that they are not minors. Kind of like bars, except that would be the only place where the drugs could be used. Your idea of the pursuit of happiness has no relevance in this discussion. Analgesic action: this merely means pain relief. I don't see why this is something that should be considered a deterrent for drug legalization. Higher toxicity: I have already argued that people should have the right to kill themselves. A less toxic drug is just as bad as a more toxic drug, depending on how much of it one takes. Since it's already possible to abuse currently legal drugs, this won't really matter. Respiratory effects: As long as people know what they are getting themselves into and don't hurt anyone else, they should be allowed to do what they want. For the same reasons smoking and alcohol are legal, all drugs should be legal. General depression: "Depressants are substances which slow down the normal function of the central nervous system." "Depressants are commonly used to reduce anxiety, induce sleep and lower inhibitions." This has nothing to do with the major depressive disorder, commonly known as depression, which you seem to have confused it with. "So they aren't PURSUING HAPPINESS...and CAUSING DEPRESSION..." Gastrointestinal motility: 2) No, I'm not saying that minors don't ever drink, smoke, or chew tobacco. I addressed this when I replied to statement 1; "...people could only use drugs in certain areas or buildings...". 3A)"...none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents , from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" has occurred." "Although post-decriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies " such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage " have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens, enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization." "The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world." http://www.cato.org... This directly refutes your assertation, which you have provided no evidence to back up. 3B) 1. A funeral is more expensive than regulated drugs, so people can go broke buying drugs. That depends on how expansive the drugs are, and how often they use those drugs. Anyways, the same argument can be applied to junk food. It's cheaper than a funeral, and eating enough of it can eventually make you need a funeral. However, it would be ridiculous to ban junk food because of that. It's your choice. 2. That means that the government pays 7 to 10 thousand dollars, and since deaths are higher we pay millions. "If you keep it simple, though, the average cost of a cremation, including a basic memorial service, runs about $1,600. If you go for a so-called direct cremation, without a memorial service, the cost can drop well below $1,000. Go online and you can find prices as low as $600 or so." http://www.nbcnews.com... You provided no data on how much the government pays for funerals, only how much a normal funeral costs, so I had to look this up myself. The government could probably get bulk discounts too. You used the high end of the price range, which is completely unrepresentative of what the government would have to pay. 3C) We have cigarettes now and people die, do they have the ability to talk to doctors, counselors, and other people who can help? Yes. But they still suffer and die. "Evidence from controlled field experiments suggests that antitobaccomass media campaigns conducted in conjunction with school- or community-based programming can be effective in curbing smoking initiation in youth and promoting smoking cessation in adults." http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov...3D) 1. As I stated above, children are exposed to these drugs. Is it OK that their lives are being risked? It would be illegal to sell any drug to anyone under the designated age, perhaps 18. Anyone caught doing so would lose their license to sell drugs, and with it a sizable slice of their business; they might go to prison. It would not be worth the risk. 2. Overdosing has nothing to do with purity, it has to do with the amount we intake... If you don't know what you're taking, you are more likely to kill yourself accidentally. 3. ...and setting it up for recreational use means NO DOSAGES, it's use at your own risk. Everyone would be free to overdose if they want. They would just know exactly how much they could take for whatever their purposes are. They would know exactly what the side-effects could be, and how much they need for a high. 4. While crime may go down ... So you admit that crime would go down. This would save HUGE amounts of people from dying! 5. ...we spend more and more on deaths... Here is some evidence that points in another direction. "Evidence from Portugal, where all drugs were decriminalized over 10 years ago, suggests safer behavior (fewer fatal overdoses and cases of HIV), when the law is not breathing down your neck so heavily." http://newint.org... This, and the end of all the violence associated with the illegal drug trade, shows that there would be probably less deaths. 6. ...and families may break over prisons or death, The thing is, there would be less deaths as well as less people going to prison, so that argument is invalid. 7. HOWEVER there will be an influx of death. See 5. 8. That means more deaths than prisoners, which leads to more broken families. See 5. 3E) I don't know what world you're from, but drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes are used by teens. "40 per cent of 12 to 13-year-olds " and that rose to "60 per cent among 14 to 15-year-olds", that doesn't sound like a decrease that's working. 1.If your programs were working why is there an increase as children get older? "...teen drug and alcohol use take a turn for the worse... "We are troubled, but not completely surprised, by these numbers because, in schools and communities across the country, support for drug education and prevention programs has been cut drastically due to budgetary pressures." (Emphasis added)http://www.drugfree.org... Obviously, cutting budgets for for drug education and prevention programs would reduce their effectiveness.