And what if people don't act in their own self interest? I don't see how that makes an argument at all. Are you saying that people are all going to smoke crack because we don't act in our self interest from time to time? (No, but how is legalization the answer when it's already a problem being banned?)

I don't understand the jist of this objection, perhaps you could elaborate. (glad to, personal responsibility only goes so far- do the poor have a RIGHT to starve to death because its their personal responsibility to find work or should society help the less fortunate?. the RIGHT to destroy your body with elicit drug use as a tenant of freedom of expression means that ALL drugs would have to be on the table & the crucial element that keeps these items blacklisted is 'Control' - people can smoke a cigarette and work, drive etc. Drinking alcohol is ceased when a person is reaching an intoxicated level by a duty of care, pot the way that is done now is OK with me regulated by those who need it, but to equate its accessibility along the same lines as cigarettes would be dangerous (yes cigarettes cause more deaths), but 'long-term to the INDIVIDUAL', not short-term to society as you cannot use it and be as fluid a cigarette usage (remember these are social conventions).


You also create a moral hazard by restricting freedoms. More people might die of drug abuse if it is legal, but those are people who chose to do drugs (are they choosers or addicts?, also do you want your government producing heroin like a pusher?. What about the entire countries who's populations are in fear of gun touting drug lords? (the only way to stop the cartel's is by legalizing all class A drugs, and why subject the majority of society to dangerous substances which you admit would find no use in having such things only to stop the criminal element which will always evolve to newer things?).