[MEGoody]

The war on some drugs has shown to be a failure.

So has every other war against every other crime. Does that mean we should just make it all legal so we don't have to spend money? If not, just exactly where do we draw the line?

[clee1]

We draw the line where it should always be drawn in order to maximize personal liberty. Any behavior that doesn’t cause harm to an uninvolved party should be legal.

Having said that, if you are stupid enough to use drugs, then I am patriot enough to let you.

[neverdem]

"Indeed, when the United States wanted to outlaw alcohol, it amended the Constitution itself to do so. The country has never adopted such a constitutional authorization for drug prohibition."

So has every other war against every other crime. Does that mean we should just make it all legal so we don't have to spend money? If not, just exactly where do we draw the line?

How about some amendments for the war on some drugs like they had the courtesy to enact for alcohol prohibition. Making alcohol requires work. Many of these drugs are found in nature and are medicinally useful.

[Darren McCarty]

Does that mean we should just make it all legal so we don't have to spend money? If not, just exactly where do we draw the line?

99% of it outside of the borders, the feds should stay out of it. The rest should be decided by local and state matters. Personally, I think things that don't directly harm other people (IE, crimes against persons and property) should be mostly decriminalized. If someone smokes a joint, I don't care unless they are driving stoned and putting others at risk. Meth and heroin I have more of a problem, but they need help, not prison.