Should drugs be banned in United States

Ill start with a few rebuttals as they touch on points I already intend to make. "...contrary to popular belief, Portugal drug usage rates, (drugs addictions per 100,000 people) is lower than the United states." This is not a proper comparison. What were the rates before (in Portugal) vs rates after (in Portugal). You cannot use our rate as a comparison to show improvement in another countries rate. "...the 'war on drugs' benefits three categories of people and three only. The cartels ..." I think we can accurately assume that cartels just become legitimized with legalization. They already have the supply chains to move their product in place and have production on a larger scale than the small medicinal operations here in the US. You aren't going to rid us of cartels by legalization, rather, you're just putting them in an executive position over a large business dealing in the legal distribution of those same drugs. "the addicts will literally do anything to feed there addiction" This may be true. But you make it seem like addiction is something that cannot be fended off. So your solution is to give in and feed it so it doesn't get nasty towards us? I can't imagine that just because the price of drugs drops ... that all addicts will still be able to make ends meet and get them. Now we'd be looking at many magnitudes more of addicts than before. If we went from 1 out of 5 addicts commit robbery to fuel their addiction to 1 in 8, we are looking at 1 in 8 of a group much higher in number than were users previously. "...prices will be lowered because new dealers have to compete in the markets and keep prices down so that they will not get outsourced, ..." When have you known anything produced here in the USA to be cheaper than product coming in from countries that have no minimum wage, age, or health code requirements? How do you think America can even compete in this type of market? Quite literally only by making drugs better and more potent ... which is where all the negative effects derive from in the first place. This brings to mind though what addicts really prefer more. Look at the cigarette industry or the alcohol industry. Addicts do not tend toward the high end product. They start out there and move toward whatever will give them their fix. Check out what pack of cigarettes anyone whose been smoking for 15-20+ years is holding. Its not the high end cigs anymore. Alcoholics the same. You'll find that their taste trends toward the alcohol and not so much the high end pop stuff with the better flavor etc. "The 'war on drugs' fails to produce results and just perpetuates the drug industry" But your solution is to douse the burning building with more fire. Producing, advertizing, everything ... making a big business of drugs is quite literally perpetuating it. Your example for perpetuating the drug industry is circumstantial and has no modal value. "A nation wide ban on drugs contradicts the 10th amendment and contradicts the foundations of a free society." I agree. But states banning it individually is just fine. Most states impose seat belt laws to match suit with others, for example, so that might be one reason why this looks like federal ban. Another has to do with the fact that its being transported over state lines. The second a person decides to be lazy and not drive to Colorado every time they want to smoke and they take some back to their home state, it becomes a federal issue again. If we were talking something like Casinos and gambling ... those are different. A state can keep their choices to themselves in those realms. The fact is, drugs move hands too easily for a state that has legalized it to effectively keep their citizens decisions within their borders. We can have a little more control over borders at a national level ... on a state level there is no way to guarantee the decision of a state to ban from being smeared by the fact that your neighboring state legalized the drugs.