[lighthawk]

> so long as it does not impede on the rights of others

This is really the crux of the problem. How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others? Public safety has a hard enough time without having to deal with some unknown number of additional people that would try drugs are harm themselves or others if those drugs were legal.

[werber]

>How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others?

The bulk of the societal harm that comes from drug use is in the steps people take to get drugs, not from the actual drug use. Having adverse reactions to drugs can be mitigated by actually knowing what you're taking. And removing the stigma and taking on addiction as a public health issue and not a criminal one is a huge boost to community safety.

[clavalle]

> How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others?

It depends on what you mean by that.

If you mean they harm others by going on a drug fueled rampage, there isn't much we can do but react when it happens like we do for, say, a passion fueled rampage or a drunken rampage.

If you mean people getting desperate because of a crippling addition so that they try to harm others in order to get access to their drug then I'd recommend spending a fraction of what we do going after and incarcerating these people and get them medical help with their addiction and the basic necessities of survival. And if they continue breaking the laws against other crimes, than prosecute them for those crimes.

[dragonwriter]

> How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others?

Illegalizing drugs doesn't keep people on those drugs from harming others; in general, government policy can't absolutely prevent any class of unconsented harms, what it can provide accountability and compensatory mechanism and do things to mitigate (or increase!) the quantity of such harms. And I think the evidence is pretty clear that prohibition, as it has been attempted with alcohol and many other drugs, does quite a bit to increase harms inflicted on others related to the use of and market for the prohibited drugs. A better policy is needed, but its not reasonable to expect that that policy will "keep people on those drugs from harming others".

[sixQuarks]

No, the crux of the problem is your line of thinking. The government cannot and should not replace personal responsibility.

Your argument would mean that no one could drive a car or drink alcohol. Why are drugs different?

[jamespo]

drugs aren't different to alcohol, but I'm sure you can appreciate they are different to cars

[Lawtonfogle]

Temporarily and in places without great public transport. Once automated cars become common place, the argument will hold for choosing to manually drive.

That being said, I've seen a lot of people who think it will eventually become illegal to manually drive, at least on crowded public roads within large cities.

[tremon]

That's not a crux, that's compounding the issue with a completely orthogonal problem. Politics 101.

How do you legalize alcohol and then keep people on alcohol from harming others? How do you legalize guns and then keep people with guns from harming others?