Are you suggesting that the act of legalising something is identical with a government endorsement of the morality of the act?

Or alternatively, that products or actions are deemed illegal on the basis of the moral harm they may cause?

Kinda reminds me of Iraq when you state it like that...

I don't think reforming the drug laws is a very high priority for anyone. And as long as only marijuana laws are addressed, it will never be.

The drug laws cost our country a fortune for enforcement and incarceration. They also increase the incidence of other crimes. And of course they are an unnecessary and unjustified restriction on the civil rights of citizens.
Legalizing only marijuana will address only part of the civil rights issue and not address at all the aspects that cost us money and increase the suffering of crime victims.

We have all seen how easily most americans give up their civil rights when the politicians tell them they should so the drive to legalize only marijuana simply becasue of the civil liberties argument is doomed to failure IMO.

Because enforcing their illegality is an enormous drain on taxpayer money, for starters.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Lame argument. The same could be said for any criminal offense. The OJ trial cost millions... so we should stop prosecuting murderers? You'll have to do better.

Sure, but other crimes violate people's rights and drug use does not.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Well, again a lame argument. Prostution violates no one's "rights." Neither does suicide. Or speeding for that matter. Unless you're a libertarian (in which case there's no point talking to you) you'll admit that societies always have and always will decide what is acceptable behavior.

I'd fight for the right to vote, right to free speech, etc. The "right" to do drugs is lame and a trivialization of the idea of "rights".

Since that is probably the most apt label to describe me (I have no problem with prostitution or suicide either), then I guess we can end the discussion.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Prostitution is regulated by the states so it's really no good to use it in an argument about federal drug laws. I believe the same is true of suicide laws. On top of that your argument doesn't support drug laws, it just calls prostitution and suicide laws into question.

And speeding is illegal because of the danger it poses to other motorists, so you can't cite it as an example that doesn't violate anyone elses rights.

If people have a "right" to use drugs, then does it really matter whether that right is violated at the state or federal level? Not really...

No, to a reasoning person my position does not "call" prostitution or suicide laws into question. Libertarians, Anarchists or simple hedonists can make all the claims they want about their "rights." Their statements are not supported by history or law. Arguing with them is like arguing with theologians...

So it's important to defend some rights (notably gun rights) but other rights can be abrogated because only libertarians, anarchists, or hedonists support them? That's an intersting concept but you can hardly call it a rational defense of drug laws.
Because you know as well as I do that lots of people think only gun nuts care about the 2nd amendment. And if we let your personal opinion about who is a hedonist or an anarchist rule the day on drug laws then how do we stop those people from setting the gun laws?

The right to "bear arms" is in the constitution... in no way it is equivalent to the right to get stoned, which is based solely on the belief that "if it feels good, do it."

The 10th amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The drug laws imposed over the last 95 or so years were originally condoned as part of the fed's right to regulate "interstate commerce". It's a legal fiction that originated in the worst kind of judicial activism in the 20s and it's bound to be rectified eventually.
Banning the sale of alcohol took a constitutional amendment. Other drugs are no different.

Precisely. So, it CAN be done, it's just NOT done.If you believe the State/Government legally/justly owns a part of your body, then no, you would not have felt violated.This is what I don't understand. I thought the Constitution implied that things which are not specifically banned should be given to the people so long as they do not harm others. Do people not have a right to their bodies? One's body is thought to be one's property, and you can damage your private property in any way you want (unless it harms others). If I recall that History Channel show correctly, Extacy was VERY popular and socially accepted among party-goers and basically all of the people their age. Then, it was banned on the assumption that people don't have the right to harm themselves, which basically implies that the government owns your body to a certain extent, which is unacceptable. As for addcitiveness, I already brought up how addictive alcohol can be in terms of difficulty quitting: it has a much greater chance to kill you while quitting than heroin. Plus, tobacco products today are basically designed to be addictive, I've heard that it was one of the toughest drugs to quit. Dangerous? Yeah, because drug dealers mix it with household cleaners and lighter fluid to make more money. Since it's already illegal, there is no quality control for the product, so people who sell don't give a damn as they are already committing a crime by virtue of selling it. Anti-social? I could argue that video games claim the social lives of many teens. I've heard stories of people qutting jobs to play WoW. Extact, on the other hand, was often used during parties to make them more interesting.

I believe it was argued earlier that other drugs should not be legalized because it would be the same as the government morally endorsing/encouraging it. Following that logic, pretty much anything that the government legalizes is endorsed. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, just drawing parallels on how it's not a good argument.Well, social decay has been brought up numerous times. If I remember correctly, extacy was banned because it was harmful to the person using it.