[dragonwriter]

> Any regulation would need to be sufficiently loose that you do not need a black market.

No, it wouldn't. There are black markets in many legal goods to evade taxes and other elements of regulation, and yet the social harms associated with such black markets tend to be much less than for similar goods that are prohibited (compare alcohol before and after Prohibition).

You mostly seem to be arguing if we can't have a perfect scheme for legalization and regulation, we should instead keep the status quo prohibition, but a legal-and-regulated scheme can be far from perfect (indeed, can even be quite bad) and be a marked improvement from the status quo.

> I would argue that the most important impact of drug use is to people who are not drug users.

I'd like to see that argument (and note that "argue" and "assert" are not the same thing.)

[7952]

> I'd like to see that argument (and note that "argue" and "assert" are not the same thing.)

Except that drugs are such a culturally charged issue that "argue" and "assert" become the same thing. Fundamentally I find the culture distasteful so I reject it. The arguments in favor seem to crassly exploit the illness of a few addicts to justify more convenient access for recreational users. This completely ignores treatment, or drug prevention in favor of a faith based approach based on barely though out laws.

[dragonwriter]

> Except that drugs are such a culturally charged issue that "argue" and "assert" become the same thing.

No, the fact that some people are emotionally invested in an issue doesn't mean that "argue" and "assert" become the same thing, its just means that "assert" becomes a lot more common than arguing.

> Fundamentally I find the culture distasteful so I reject it.

What culture?

> The arguments in favor seem to crassly exploit the illness of a few addicts to justify more convenient access for recreational users.

The arguments in favor of what?