[estaseuropano]

I'm not a fan of the US war on drugs (which is not really a thing in Europe), but there is a difference between weed and meth. One may ruin your life, one WILL ruin your life. You argue from a point of abstract principles, but miss that there is a reality.

Just as there is food safety and certain things are not allowed to be sold because it would be dangerous to you or harmful to the world to eat them, so some drugs also need to be illegal. If you don't believe that go and see any drug addict street, or visit a Brazilian slum where the kids waste away on glue fumes. At societal level high rates of hard drug consumption are unbearable and destroy any healthy community. Opium had two whole wars around it as it was forced into the market by Brits and French and destroyed the fabric of Chinese society with entire generations of men disappearing into (legal) opium dens and spending all their and their families' fortunes while wasting away and letting their children starve.

No one wants to be a drug addict and no reasonable person that has a basic understanding of what hard drugs can do can think drugs like that should be legal. Meth, crack and co are a dozen times worse than opium, not to mention krokodil or similar poison that will straight up destroy your organs from first use.

Portugal has taken the right route, with drugs still illegal but drug use not anymore criminalised, so they are getting people off the streets and off the drugs. There is no benefit in locking people up for using, as they 99% don't want to use - they just can't find the way out. But that hard drugs themselves need to be illegal and fought is without question.

[parksoha]

You gave a really bad example with Portugal, completely contradicts your position.

Portugal literally allowed people to do hard drugs, no matter which, safely, instead of persecuting them. Portugal has a table in their legislation with the drugs amounts people can carry with them without ever being considered a crime if it falls under.

There was a heroine epidemic in the 90s, not only now they have proper places where they help people inject themselves, they also provide psychological help.

Compared to the normal way other countries deal with drugs, this is much more close to have all drugs legal than not. So I'm not understanding the position of no reasonable person would want drugs legal, given that in the 90s seeking for a close-state of being legal was what Portugal sought and achieve enormous results with it that it is still the law we have today.

source: I live in Portugal and I have tried a myriad of drugs from "soft" to "hard" without ever fearing for my safety in regards to the law.

[Tenoke]

You are generalizing. Plenty of people do want to take drugs and aren't addicted. There's also plenty addicted to legal substances. While some recreational drugs have higher harm profiles 'they 99% don't want to use' is way off and you need better statistics to make decisions on what and how should be legal/decriminalized/whatever.

Even for meth - pure meth aka desosyn is as or more effective than adderal for ADHD and taken by many daily without issue. On the other hand, yes many have ruined their lives using it but you need better data to make a judgement.

[parksoha]

This is such a common fallacy in this topic. They imply people will do these drugs just because they are legal. Does everyone is smoking cigs? Or drinking alcohol? Or taking psychedelic seeds and plants that in a lot of countries are not defined as illegal? No sense.

[Stevvo]

Saying Meth will ruin your life is not consistent with the data. Before 1971 you could buy it in any pharmacy without prescription and there was no usage epidemic. The vast majority of people who use Meth today do not get addicted.