[robertpaulsen]

"Have any reasons that I haven't already shown to be invalid in other threads?"

I must, since I'm still against the legalization of drugs.

BTW, it's not necessary to invalidate my reason -- we agree, for example, that there is a financial burden placed on us by recreational drug users.

But just because you point out that a similar burden exists for alcohol and overeating doesn't make me slap my forehead and proclaim that it's not fair that drugs aren't similarly burdening me.

Or did you think that your arguments were so clever and compelling that I'd stupidly vote to legalize drugs despite the fact that it would cost me more money?

Is this an example of you invalidating one of my objections? No wonder I'm still against drugs.

[Read JDM]

I wrote the article.

The way I see it, other people's drug use shouldn't be costing us money at all. Yet, because it's illegal, we pay for incarceration. We pay for treatment. We pay for the additional cops needed to enforce the laws. We pay for the war that results when terrorists gain power through the drug trade. We pay for the state colleges that socially engineer their student populations based on race, to make up for all the poor kids who aren't making it to college because their dads aren't around to help them with math homework all their lives.

My take is that we shouldn't be paying for any of this stuff. Whether drugs are legal, whether they're illegal -- we shouldn't be paying for other people's crappy decisions with our own hard-earned money. I know it sounds callous, but maybe people will stop screwing up when they realize the system's not going to save them every time around.

[MrLeRoy]

Have any reasons that I haven't already shown to be invalid in other threads?

I must, since I'm still against the legalization of drugs.

Non sequitur.

But just because you point out that a similar burden exists for alcohol and overeating doesn't make me slap my forehead and proclaim that it's not fair that drugs aren't similarly burdening me.

Straw man. My point was simply to note that you don't really believe your that-which-costs-me-money-should-be-banned argument---so why should anyone else?