The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

"And if you're gonna cite the "Comments" section, I claim this to be completely abusive. You can't let others make your arguments for you. But I'll go along with it." I wasn't letting others make my arguments for me. I was referring readers to your post, where you said that it was OK if I argued in favor of legalization. "You talk about the Taliban and Mexican drug cartels. That's great. But you fail to recognize all gangs, meaning you assume what works for one will work for all. Thus, you still commit the fallacy. And then you go on to say "gangs in U.S. inner cities..." And you, once again, fail to address gangs worldwide. And they lose their main source of revenue, and then they find a new one. This does not decrease gang violence. Acknowledge the turn I placed in my last speech saying that increased accessibility due to legalization increases drug violence." Well, for one, I never said that the claims I made about the Taliban and Mexican drug cartels applied to all gangs, all around the world. I said that it would take revenue from those specific gangs. They'll find a new source of revenue? So let me get this straight: Right now, these groups have some activity they could be doing that would earn them more revenue. However, they don't do that activity because. . . why exactly? What, do they want to keep an exactly even amount of revenue? They will only engage in these other profitable activities once their drug money is taken away? Furthermore, it's not like I'm the only one that thinks that legalization would hurt the Mexican drug cartels. Mexico's ex-president Vincente Fox, as well as President Calderon, are both currently advocating legalization of drugs as a solution to Mexico's violence. "Who is to say legitimate businesses wouldn't buy from the Taliban? The Iranian government certainly has no problem helping Hamas, so why wouldn't businesses support the Taliban? What if businesses did a backdoor deal? On your next argument, terrorists would be forced to sell their opium cheaper if businesses entered that market." You're comparing the Iranian government to legitimate Western business owners? Of course Iran helps Hamas attack Israel; they share the common interest of wanting Israel destroyed. How many Western business owners want to help the Taliban? Even if they did, why would they want to deal with dangerous terrorists, and the expense of shipping the opium all the way from Afghanistan? And, even if the business owners were to deal with the Taliban, you admit that the Taliban would have to sell for far lower prices. This supports my claim that legalization would take revenue from the Taliban. "My point was that drug use EMPIRICALLY increases risky behavior, such as crime and unprotected sex. I'm not saying drug use is the main or only cause of crime, but it is a contributor. Also, aggression isn't synonymous with crime. For example, breaking into a gas station at night when it's closed isn't aggressive towards a person because there isn't a person there. Also, is unprotected sex aggressive? No." Yes, actually, breaking into a gas station at night is aggression, even if no one is there. It may not be violent, but it is still an act of aggression. And where is your evidence that drug related dangers would increase with legalization? For example, in Portugal "drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically" after decriminalization. [1] [1] http://www.cato.org... "You never say that drugs were completely safe, or that people should combine them. I concede that. But why would you push a program that isn't safe? It doesn't seem like you would be operating within any parameter of safety." Because, as I said before, we are safer with drugs legalized. As Portugal shows, drugs users themselves are safer without criminalization, and the rest of us are safer from the gangs and cartels with legalization. "I have looked at that graph multiple times. And I want every voter to look at page 38 of that book provided at the bottom of the book. And if you look closely... You can see that drug use increased! Seriously, people, go look at it. I will concede that multidrugs decreased somewhat after an initial RISE in use." Page 38 has no graph on it, so I have no idea which graph you are talking about. But the author himself states that "Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. 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." "And I am forced to ask, what do you propose we do? Get rid of the criminal justice system? I can tell from your picture and info you're an anarchist. But seriously, that's what you want? An unjust criminal justice system is better than none at all. I want all the voters to remember that." I propose that we get rid of THIS criminal justice system, and replace it with a just one. This is an entirely different topic irrelevant to this debate, but, if readers are interested in how law and order could work without government, I highly suggest this: http://mises.org... (the ‘Police, Law, and the Courts' chapter specifically. Although, the rest of the book is great too.) "That is not an appeal to emotion. If you can say your argument wasn't one, than neither is mine. My argument only shows that drug-users sometimes drive drugged, and sometimes harm others. That's all. If I really wanted to make an appeal to emotion, I could have added details. And how is that a "Proof by Example" fallacy? I'm not saying all drug users drive drugged, or all drugged drivers kill. Thus, I'm not fallacious. Once again, I don't need to have evidence for everything. I don't have time to have evidence for everything. And you don't have to advocate it. It's something that comes along with drug use. Just like drunk driving." It's interesting that you mention drunk driving. I assume that you don't advocate the reinstatement of alcohol prohibition to solve that problem, do you? "Wait, so heroin addiction is caused by something other than heroin? That's odd... I will concede environmental factors are what make the addicts do heroin, but the heroin itself is responsible for its results and addiction. Also, what's wrong with using personal anecdotes? I don't see any reason why they're wrong to use." You have no evidence that heroin itself is responsible for its negative consequences. If you admit that environmental factors are what make addicts do heroin, then why is it so hard to believe that those same factors cause their other problems?