> Most of those in prison on drug charges are scumbag drug dealers and drug traffickers.
And woudl they be there if the drugs were legal?
> I believe I used the term "ostracize".
In the context of lockign people up, yes.
> And why do you insist on placing drinkers and smokers in the same category as illegal drug users.
Because there's no true difference.
>You don't see any difference?
No functional ones, no. I've never seen anyone smoke pot and suddenly turn into a rampaging killing machine, for instance. Certainly not like someone who's got a drunk on. I've seen a hell of a lot more trouble come from beer than pot, and most of the crime associated with the other drugs is bound up in the distribution of it.
> One size fits all?
Yep. It's called the "Constitution." The only thing I see in there about controlling what drugs a person chooses to take has been repealed. What someone chooses to do to themselves is their own business. If someone wants to get stoned or take acid or whatever... fine. But if you take it on the road, we have DUI laws that can handle that just fine.
Probably. They'd be there for dealing or trafficking something else. What? You think they'd go out and get a real job?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
"Certainly not like someone who's got a drunk on."
Since you're proposing the legalization of all drugs, let's not limit the discussion to pot. Those on PCP are not dangerous? A large number of crimes are committed by people on illegal drugs. A large number of crime are committed by people to buy drugs, and that wouldn't change unless you're going to give drugs away.
An attempt to ban alcohol failed, and there's been no attempt to ban tobacco. These products are part of our culture, and people have zero interest in legally changing the status quo. Yet you want to lump them in with cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. I don't think so.