Very few marijuana users go on to use heroin. You have yet to support your claim that many people are undeterred from heroin use by its inherent risks but are deterred by legal penalties.
You suggested there was no link between decriminalization and increased use. That's absurd
No, it's only 99% true. I'll grant you that while in prison a drug user is less likely to use ... but the increased use due to not imprisoning them would be minor and well worth the savings in tax dollars and/or prison space.
alcohol can be kept entirely non-illicit. Sure it can be abused,
What's the difference between "illicit use" and "abuse"? I don't see your point here.
but paint, markers, hair spray, and the like can be abused.
I'm sure the abuse-to-use ratio is much higher for alcohol than for those products. If hair spray abuse was as great a problem as alcohol abuse is, arguing that abuse-only substances should be banned but hair spray should not would be as feeble as your alcohol argument is.
When a particular use of a product is the majority use
I'd love to see evidence that intoxicating use of alcohol is a minority use; my observation is the opposite.
"Very few marijuana users go on to use heroin"
No, but very many become psychologically addicted to pot.
>>Very few marijuana users go on to use heroin. <<
Guess again. http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/511376.html
>>You have yet to support your claim that many people are undeterred from heroin use by its inherent risks but are deterred by legal penalties.<<
That's not part of my argument. I don't know why you are singling out heroin, but my point doesn't require users to go straigth to smack.
>>but the increased use due to not imprisoning them would be minor and well worth the savings in tax dollars and/or prison space.<<
You want to try and support this with some authority? Are you telling me that if drug users are not jailed, their continued drug use will be "minor?"
>>What's the difference between "illicit use" and "abuse"? I don't see your point here.<<
My point is that while one can abuse alcohol, another person can utilize the product without abuse. Illicit drug use, by definition, is abuse. I can drink a beer because I'm thirsty, or drink a glass of wine with dinner because I like the taste. If I snort up, I'm doing it strictly for a high.
>>the abuse-to-use ratio is much higher for alcohol<<
It doesn't matter whether it is much higher; it is nowhere near 100%, as it is for drugs.
>>I'd love to see evidence that intoxicating use of alcohol is a minority use; my observation is the opposite.<<
I've never been drunk in my life. Hell, never had a "beer buzz." Never had a hangover, nothing. I have a 6 pack of beer at the bottom of my fridge, a bottle of Jack Daniels in my pantry, and a bottle of Vermouth on my cabinet. I know a lot of people that have the same, and I know a hell of a lot more people that drink but have rarely, if ever, been intoxicated.
And anyway, it doesn't matter. Its not 100%. Its nowhere near, even if it is a majority. Drug use, by definition, can never be less than 100%.