Deaths caused by drunk driving can be attributed, in part, to people who support staunch drug policy

"CONTENTION 1) CON DID NOT PROVIDE AMPLE EVIDENCE THAT DRUG WAR IS WORKING." Since you were the one making the assertion the burden of proof lies with you, not with me. As well, I never said I was in favor of a, as you call it, "a staunch drug war." My contention is with your solution -- which is do nothing. Is stands to reason, when, millions of pounds of heroin, cocaine, etc have been seized, that millions more are likely to be filtering through. Being a Sea Marshall in the US Coast Guard means that one of my job descriptions entails the seizure of narcotics. And I can tell you that these mafioso's are getting crafty. They've actually learned how to liquefy cocaine so that it can be stored in tanks on a vessel. If the USCG gets too close, they simply jettison it overboard. They have also manufactured semi-submersible submarines. We know this because we have found them. "CONTENTION 2) CON DID NOT CONTEST THAT KIDS ARE "EASED" INTO A LIFE OF CRIME BY HARSH ALCOHOL/DRUG LAWS." I didn't think I had to because your evidence to the contrary was completely anecdotal and specious. To assert that it somehow forces kids in to a life of crime because it is illegal is nonsense. It makes about as much sense as saying the justice system creates murders because its illegal. Your argument suggests that kids are just curious. So what? This is often the problem with arguments such as these -- people neglect to personalize the problem -- that way they have a detached perfect-world scenario in their mind. I wonder how cool you'd be if your 14 year old was smoking meth. I wonder if you'd be as flippant about it as you are now. "CONTENTION 3) CON DID NOT ADDRESS HOW EASILY DRUGS ARE PROCURABLE BY CHILDREN IN SCHOOL UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM." So your answer is just allow it? Seriously, what kind of sense does that make? Extrapolate this non-answer to any other crime and see if it makes a lick of sense. "CONTENTION 4) CON DID NOT ADDRESS HOW ONCE CHILDREN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LAW MORE LIKELY TO SKIRT DUI LAWS AND GO OUT THERE AND KILL SOMEONE." Far be it from me to belabor the obvious, but you are the one encouraging deaths, not me. If drugs are not illegal, as you hope for them to be, then there is no legal justification for stopping them before they kill someone. I'm mystified as to how and why you think being arrested on a drug charge is going to make people get baked even more. They are going to do whatever they want to do and weigh the risks. The fact that they know they are not allowed to do it is the only thing that keeps it from becoming rampant. The kid hopped up on crank under your plan can plow in to a family, survive the crash themselves, and walk away a free man. Why? Because they've done nothing illegal. Yet you chastise those in favor of SOME drug policy? That's patently absurd. Try and remember that these laws are passed to protect the general public. Its like the seat belt law. They passed it because so many people were dying without them. Out of the interest of others they made it mandatory to wear a seat belt. Likewise asbestos was found to be toxic. Out of the interest to the health of the general public, they made it illegal to manufacture. The way you make it sound, resolutions were passed to ruin peoples fun. But they aren't. It is with good reason. This is what you support. Take a hard look at the reality. http://www.drugfree.org... "YOU ARE SERIOUSLY EXAGGERATING MY ARGUMENT." Am I? Or is it that you really haven't considered how this would actually work beyond the theoretical stage? Besides, you stated in no uncertain terms that anyone cool with a drug policy is to BLAME for anyone who dies as the result of the drug. That's not a gross embellishment? Cause I always thought the blame lie mostly with the people who profit off of the drugs. Back to the highlighted point you made: If drugs are legal, then, pray tell, what legal justification do you have to stop a 9 year old from smoking meth till their hearts content? You would actually be taking away their rights if you did. "IF DRUGS WERE LEGAL, PARENTS WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE INVOLVED IN THE CHILDREN'S DECISION TO EXPERIMENT WITH DRUGS." They have that ability right now, whether it is legal or illegal. But lets extrapolate your argument once again. You've claimed that the fact that drugs are illegal actually causes kids to do drugs, presumably, 'cause their feelings are hurt and they want to take away the pain. If the parent does not allow the child to do drugs because, heaven forbid, they care about the welfare of their young and naive child, are they at fault for killing them if they do attempt to stop them? Its sounds like a serious case of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't as a parent. A parent, then, can actually do no right under your system. "ONCE LEGAL... GOVERNMENT CONTROL WILL..." Again, this is so oversimplified. I doubt that you've really considered what it takes to accomplish something of this magnitude, and then you tell me, honestly, if you believe that it can work. Lets first consider manufacturing and distribution. There are many different kinds of drugs-- some synthetic, some grown naturally, some hydroponically. Who covers distribution? How does anyone know how much are needed and where? Is a clinic in Los Angeles' Hollywood district going to have thousands of pounds of various narcotics to dispense? How much is going to be alloted to a clinic in Lincoln, Nebraska? How much and what kinds of drugs will Yuma, Arizona receive? What about Scranton, Pennsylvania? This is an enormous nation with an insatiable appetite for narcotics. And what happens when those places run dry? Where will these distribution centers be located? Now lets say that I'm clean. But I lie and tell the government that I'm a junky who can't live without heaping helpings of meth. If I can go down to the clinic in, say, downtown Portland, OR and get me some free crack, I can cover the other districts like Eugene, Salem, Gresham who are in demand for more crack. I could be the most successful peddler ever. I have PURE profit. I have NO overhead costs because I don't have to spend any money to re-up my supply. I make nothing but money, at the expense of YOU, the taxpayer. Then I can set my crime ring and I become the mafioso that you put out of business in Mexico. Like I said, if there is one thing that you can guarantee about people is that we will find a way to manipulate and rape something good for nefarious means. Next argument: The government would have to ration these quantities, otherwise you run the risk of the very problem I mentioned above. But now you have crack fiends, en masse, who have used their entire supply. They have to wait until next week to re-up. Question: Do really think that a true junky is going to lovingly and patiently come down to the clinic once a day to get just one fix? Hell no! They'd break into the place at night if they could, which, by the way, raises another question about security needs. OR, who do they come to? They come to me, Dr. Feelgood, who extorts them for money. No money, no drugs. Then they have to wait. Do you really think the government is going to allow that? Would this be legal for me to do? If not, and they caught wind of my felonious ways, don't you think legal action would be taken against me? Well, if that happens to me, surely that would happen all over the nation -- this enormous nation that the government would have to subsidize for. All of a sudden raids are being conducted, sting operations on every other corner, just like how it is now! So you not only did not take away the War on Drugs, but you just federally funded people to their deaths! When exposed to the light of scrutiny, your plan looks like an abject failure.