[tpaine]

Nope, I'm not forgetting the rationalizations for drug laws. [good summary, btw]

I'm attempting to point out that prohibitory law, - the banning of property, - is unconstitutional.

Works for guns, applies equally to 'drugs', -- Both can be dangerous possessions when used by immature/deranged individuals. -- Thus the key is constitutional methods of regulating public use, not prohibition.

[MadIvan]

tpaine:

The owning of a gun does not make one sick and insane, except in very unusual circumstances. Continued use of drugs virtually guarantees that a person will become sick and insane, except in very unusual circumstances!

As a point of principle, the rights of a drug user end where the rights of the normal citizen begin. People who get smashed on heroin will most certainly be irresponsible and unproductive members of society, creating a mess which will have to be paid for if only for cleaning up the body.

This involves getting into a discussion about degrees of bad. As I say, soft drugs should be legalised - because it is possible to "maintain", i.e., remain a responsible citizen and not be a burden on others. Hard drugs are not like that.

Regards, Ivan