[Entelechy]

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.

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.)

[MadIvan]

Entelechy:

We can define hard and soft by comparing addictive properties, risk of instant death by taking one dose, long term damage from consumption, whether "casual consumption" is possible (I would suggest that heroin is not a drug of choice for the "casual" consumer), and medical use.

Heroin and cocaine, for example, have absolutely zero medical benefits, can easily kill with a single hit, and the long term damage is enormous.

Ivan