[MrLeRoy]

In one of my earlier posts I cited a reputable source that explained that crack is often so addictive that even one encounter with the substance can render some helpless against cravings for more.

Your source did NOT say "often." This illustrates where your "intuitions" about drugs come from---vague statements hazily recalled and colored by your preconceptions.

"By that logic, everything that's dangerous for children should be banned for adults---alcohol, knives, cars, .... "

Why are these things not banned then?

Because your liberal "for the children" argument is bogus.

A majority of the public must not feel strongly that drugs should be legalized

No majority has the ethical authority to tell any adult what he can put in his own body.

[Rocksalt]

"vague statements hazily recalled and colored by your preconceptions."

Vague statements,hazily recalled,and colored preconceptions caused by watching so many people around me die or go down the tubes from the effects of drug use.The kind of thing you could obviously care less about.

"Because your liberal "for the children" argument is bogus."

OK-you are right.It is alright to ignore any ramifications of narcotics legalization,lets let free MDMA be given away on every streetcorner,it's only possible it might fall into the hands of children,but it's safe anyway..........

"No majority has the ethical authority to tell any adult what he can put in his own body."

I notice you include the word ethical in there. Explain that if you could.

[cinFLA]

No majority has the ethical authority to tell any adult what he can put in his own body.

Which is it? Ethics or constitution? Feds or states rights? Libertarians bounce all over on these issues.