[Fry]

Seriously, who does it hurt if I drive like a maniac? It's my car, it's my body, I paid for the roads. I'm an adult, I can choose to drive any way I want. If I want to use both lanes, hey, I paid for 'em, I'll use them anyway I want.

Boy, I'd really like to do some cocaine right now, but I'm afraid to deal with the ruffians that sell it.
I don't know if you drink, but I do on occasion. If I faced jail time and the prospect of getting shot and robbed by the clerk at the 7-11 every time I wanted a six pack, you know, I wouldn't drink. Some other people would, but it I wouldn't. Not even for Pilsner Urquell.

Pretty much everyone who wants to do drugs in this country does them
Okay, let's pretend that is the case. If you drop the price, if you make it more widely available, if you make it legal, and if you ensure purity and quality, don't you think this might increase the number of people who want to use them?

[truenospinzone]

Seriously, who does it hurt if I drive like a maniac? It's my car, it's my body, I paid for the roads. I'm an adult, I can choose to drive any way I want. If I want to use both lanes, hey, I paid for 'em, I'll use them anyway I want.

That's a strawman argument. Once you are interacting in public with fellow citizens, safety laws are completely valid. You are in direct contact with other citizens, and the possibility of negligence on your part causing another person harm is acutely viable. There is a world of difference between a law governing direct public conduct and a law governing public contact twice removed. In other words, it is completely reasonable to tell someone who is driving on a public road to follow laws put in place to ensure a greater degree of safety. It is NOT at all reasonable to tell that person that they cannot own a car at all because they may use the road and may cause injury when doing so.

I'll hit the other points shortly, but let me just thank you for being civil and keeping this a true debate. Dealing with a lunatic like Curry reminds me that's not always easy.

[Eagle Eye]

Your arguemnts have a historical precident. Look at alcohol prohibition. Nearly everything that you have said was said then and nearly all of it has been disproven. We did not turn into a nation of alcoholics when booze was returned to legal status. We do not have vast corruption in law enforcement and government because of booze money. Children are not getting boozed up by playground pushers, and there are not more turfwars on the streets.

Can't say the same about drugs, now can you?