[robertpaulsen]

"What's not amusing is the money and resources that could be saved, or put to a better use."

What money is that? What resources are those?

We're talking "use", not arrests, incarcerations, drug programs, etc.

I bet we can cut down on the number of DWI's by making it legal and arresting those drunk drivers only after they've actually broken some law (like speeding, accidents, etc.).

[dmz]

You've made a totally BS comparison, and I'm nearly positive you are intelligent enough to know that it is BS.

Alcohol is legal, but there are regulations on its usage that no-one really objects to (except of course when they are pulled over for DWI).

Or how 'bout the money and resources spent on this situation reported a week or so ago? What do you think was really accomplished?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1204895/posts

[t_skoz]

Robert, drunken driving IS a crime, as you fraudulently use public roads in violation of other's rights. Speeding is another fraudulent use of public roads. People who are impaired and cause accidents should have the book thrown at them anyways.

Even the most liberal and wasteful treatment programs cost far less than incarceration, incarceration of drug users that results in early release for violent criminals or higher tax burdens for citizens as we are driven to build and staff more prisons.

Personally I am against the whole legalization and taxation argument because I'm against anything that will increase bureaucracy and income of the federal government.

[Conservative til I die]

I bet we can cut down on the number of DWI's by making it legal and arresting those drunk drivers only after they've actually broken some law (like speeding, accidents, etc.).

Actually, your usual stupid and poorly applied analogy ignores that we're talking about mere usage, not DWI. If alcohol were currently prohibited, then your analogy would make sense.

People are arrested for mere posession. It doesn't matter if they're driving a car or not while intoxicated.