[robertpaulsen]

"If we are well aware of the futility of prohibition"

Of alcohol. That doesn't mean other things can't be prohibited.

If you don't think the prohibition of drugs is working, if you believe it's futile, then you must believe that if we ended it drug use would not increase.

Do you truly believe that?

[NCSteve]

Of alcohol. That doesn't mean other things can't be prohibited.

I see, so what, exactly makes alcohol different than any other drug?

If you don't think the prohibition of drugs is working, if you believe it's futile, then you must believe that if we ended it drug use would not increase.

Well first, the prohibition of drugs is obviously not working, just like the prohibition of alcohol didn't work, and for all the same reasons and with all the same side effects.

And second, your statement is a logical non sequitur. My belief in the futility of it has nothing to do with whether it decreases the use of drugs. It is futile because it is not a proper function of government to regulate what we ingest. It is futile because the goal of prohibition is to eliminate drug use, something that is obviously impossible.

[Eagle Eye]

Why do you or anyone else care whether or not drug abuse ends?

That isn’t anyone’s goal at all as even OTC meds can be abused.

But why on earth is it important to you if your next door neighbor catches a buzz or stays up all night as long as they don’t cause you harm?

Addiction? There are addicts in all strata of society, from high functioning addicts like Rush Limbaugh and Brett Favre, who’s ‘crimes’ were to become addicted to pain meds to street trash who will sniff glue, paint, or industrial chemicals to get a high.

Are you truly worried about the health and welfare of those you’ve never met?

Or are you mostly concerned that someone is doing something that you can’t control?