Drug categorisation and legalization

Thank you for your prompt response, desertdawg. Though it seems that the context of this debate has been shifted, I accept the new conditions, noting that (with your acknowledgement) you hereby forfeit and submit that at least all indole hallucinogens (and cannabis obviously) are suitable for recreational, personal, spiritual or therapeutic use, as well as; as tools for use in the facilitation of creative processes, for which I find no convenient single verb. In this preface I would also like to suggest that you update your comment to reflect your new position ( http://www.debate.org... ) as you have apparently misread "Types of legalization" ['This ranges from full legalization, which would completely remove all control, to partial legalization, which means that drugs would be available but only under controlled circumstances.'] which acknowledges that some substances would best remain of a lower availability than tic-tacs, though current legislation is problematic. This is the case for most substances available in 'smart shops' and 'head shops' around the world, where legalization has proved to be less problematic than is often asserted. I also request that you refrain from eroding your position down to a mere opposition of certain specific use cases which simply fall under the generally accepted banner of misuse already. If this is the case then please forfeit entirely and refrain from rounding 0.1 to 1 when boiling your position down to a single sentence, misleading or otherwise, it should at least represent your position accurately. Arguments for legalization (potentially for recreation) of cocaine (already used in some medical procedures as a local anesthetic), methamphetamine and heroin (and opioids by relation): [see http://www.spiegel.de...] In approaching the issue of preventative measures against drug ABUSE one must first classify what constitutes use and abuse. Psychedelics and many stimulants are of low toxicity and risk to the user (particularly the former), so it can be established that there are substances - the use of which can be entirely recreational - which necessitates that we accept that all of the behaviors of the user (pharmacokinetically, interpersonally, psychologically, etc.) and the substance (pharmacodynamically) which are accepted as 'recreationally acceptable' (an expression of personal freedom which does not directly infringe upon the rights of others) are therefore acceptable of all other substances. [Hypothetically] Abuse can then be defined as follows: -Abuse to the user: The drug causes the user to behave in such a way that they act unquestionably dangerously, either infringing upon the rights of others, or defined by a fair and reasonable assessment to be incapable of making a rational determination about his/her own well-being (mentally ill){This raises questions of rational suicide and premeditation, given that the former condition is always satisfied}. -Abuse to the drug: The user consumes the drug in ways which violate the above conditions. Note that this paradigm supposes that such a person be denied the liberty of access to such classes of substances, rather than criminalized (unless in conjunction with greater offenses- treated as mentally ill where applicable). In the case of legalization in parts of Europe it has proven that it is at least possible to reduce the harmful use of drugs, generate tax revenue, and increase the freedom of citizens by implementing therapeutic treatment (it should be noted that MDMA (a methamphetamine), 4-PO-DMT and many DMT concoctions have unprecedented positive effects on addiction relief) rather than imprisonment. This raises the issue of reasons against criminalization, rather than for decriminalization. Noting that substances are currently illegal in the context that you observe such harm in, this suggests that the context is unsuited to the substances, however it still remains to be proven in the face of significant evidence to the contrary that legalization would not make usage much safer and less of a fuel for black markets. As a matter of human rights and basic freedom over one's own body and mind, should one not be allowed to make such educated decisions themself? I pose this question as an adendum to my argument as it seems from my position that this is a fundamental right which necessitates that the laws governing society facilitate these freedoms safely rather than constraining them entirely arbitrarily legalize certain (curiously dangerous, addictive and profitable) substances. It doesn't seem democratic or morally acceptable. Why is it acceptable for tobacco and alcohol to ruin lives, but not methamphetamine or cocaine in regulated doses?