This statement, which Cultural Jihad agreed with I believe, is interesting. I have to ask you to define "hard" and "soft" now.
What are the objective criterion we could use to evaluate the "hardness" of a drug? Assume for a minute there's a brand new drug on the market. How do we determine whether to ban it, in your view?
(As an aside, I think we can agree that the federal drug war is unconstitutional. State laws are a different matter.)
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.
tpaine: The owning of a gun does not make one sick and insane,
--- Where have I said it did?
except in very unusual circumstances. Continued use of drugs virtually guarantees that a person will become sick and insane, except in very unusual circumstances!
-- Generalization & fallacy. No basis in fact.
As a point of principle, the rights of a drug user end where the rights of the normal citizen begin.
Weird 'principle'. This is just empty nonsense rhetoric.
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.
Substitute 'booze' for heroin, and whataya got? A drunk we ignore. Big deal, empty argument.
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.
--- And as I say, the solution is finding a constitutional method of regulation. --- You seem incapable of addressing that point. I'm beginning to understand why.