Personally, I think Prostitution should be legalized. I do believe I recall hearing about a legal brothel in some part of the US. If Prostitution harms nobody's rights, then why is it banned? If anything, it indirectly harms people because prostitutes won't be as willing to go to the police. As for suicide, I think it's pretty clear why it's pointless to keep that illegal, since it's impossible to enforce (deterrent effect is non-existent, you can't be jailed afterwards either). I guess you might have an argument for speeding, since it creates an unsafe environment, although I don't completely agree with the way driving is treated as a "priviledge." Whether societies always have done something or not is not an argument to keep it that way.

Hey, I'm just trying to figure out if there really is a logical reason to keep the ban on drugs. Right now, it doesn't appear so, looking at the number of "it's always been that way so we should keep it" arguments.

Actually, it's based on the belief that since it doesn't harm anybody else, why is it illegal?

The thought that scares me most about legalization is how it would be even easier for kids to get ahold of drugs. Until that problem's solved, I'd be very uncomfortable with legalization.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

When I was a teenager it was much easier to obtain marijuana or cocaine etc than to lay hands on alcohol. My kids tell me it's the same today.

It was for me as well. That's why I said even easier.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Alcohol is harder to get ahold of because it requires the connivance of an adult and becasue there is a structrure in place for regulating access to it. liquor store and bar owners are motivated to keep the substance out of the hands of children by the legal penalties that can crippl ehteier business.

Drug dealers are breaking the law anyway. They couldn't care less whether the buyer is 18 or not.

So when all drugs are legal and regulated it will be harder for children to get their hands on them.

The question is, WILL it be easier? If drugs are legalized, it isn't unreasonable to assume they will have age requirements. So, in order to get drugs, kids will have to fake IDs.

Right now, since drugs are flat out illegal, drug dealers make a lot of money selling them. But, because they ARE selling them, and it's illegal already, they have no problems selling it to kids. If drugs are legalized, the profit for illegal drug dealing will fall and those guys will more or less disappear. So, instead of just buying drugs from dealers, kids will have to buy it illegally from otherwise legal drug selling establishments. And guess who will be more willing to break the law? The drug dealers who are already breaking it or legitimate drug sellers who have not yet broken it?

A good argument, but faulty. A constutional amendment was NOT required to ban alcohol--a simple law would have sufficed. There was not likely to be such a law passed, so an amendment was used instead. As you know, many areas in the US (especially in the south) are "dry" even today.

Actually, it's based on the belief that since it doesn't harm anybody else, why is it illegal?

As I've shown with examples of prostitution, suicide and other crimes..that "belief" is not part of the historical or legal framework of our country.

I'm sorry but that's just silly. It's alot harder to pass an amendment to the constitution than to pass a law. If it could have been done without the amendment it would have been.

"Historical Framework??" Most of the drug laws we have today weren't passed until the '30s - the prohibition era. Even the law which merely regulates drugs instead of outlawing them didn't exist before 1921.

Not really. The religious fervor of the early 20th century was widespread, but legislators were not that interested in destroying the liquor industry. If you have a majority of people behind an issue, all you need is 2/3 of the states to pass a referendum.

but, you ignored the larger issue, that alcohol is still illegal in many places.. there is no "right" to drink alcohol.

You're confusing the issue. I did not say there was a historical framework for banning drugs. I said there was a historical and legal framework for laws in the US (and England). That framework was NOT built on the idea that if "it doesn't harm anyone it should be legal." That's a personal belief of the poster and has no historical or legal foundation.

If you want to discuss the history of drug laws, that's a valid topic. Yes, MJ, Opium, LSD and most other drugs were legal at one time. Their use was not widespread as they became in the 50s and 60s and there wasn't alot of scientific evidence about their effects.

I'm not confusing the issue. You are the one who cited historical framework. I was merely pointing out there is very little historical framework.

Citizens do not have to provide historical or legal foundation to preserve liberty. Government has to show an overriding state interest in order to restrict liberty. No such interest is evident to me and nobody here has provided any.