[Zon]

The arguments you just put forth, similar arguments can be made to justify the vast majority of laws. Almost all of them are arguments premised on the rationalization that people will run society running headlong into destruction.

Not only has the justice system failed, so has the legislative. Legislators, the media and educators tell us that if not for each years new laws people and society would run head long into destruction. Clinton's two terms created 3,000 new laws and regulations each year -- 24,000 new laws.

Question, how is it that the people and society didn't self-destruct prior to the 1990's or 1890's? Not to mention how it is that people and society are not now self-destructing without the new laws and regulations to come over the next five, ten, fifteen years? Apparently the above mentioned parasitical elites would have us believe that people and society are constantly on the tipping point of self destruction. In reality people and society increasingly prospered, moving away from destruction.

Virtually every person breaks the law a few times each year. If every lawbreaker, that's virtually all of society, could be apprehended next week, society would run headlong into destruction. Yet with all those lawbreakers running lose society is not in danger of self-destruction.

[Rockingham]

To make the point that there are too many laws and too many of the wrong kind does not provide a persuasive argument against any single law or against anti-drug laws as a group. There is no general remedy against the ills of the world and human folly and perversity. Things can be made better or worse depending on the choices we make, but radically fewer laws is implausible except by making the case against them on the particulars .