"Irrelevant---people have sought highs from many substances not intended for that purpose."
The fact that legal narcotics would be intended for human consumption makes my point relevant.Airplane glue is not sold for human consumption.It serves a function other than intoxication and therefore people who abuse it to get high are clearly responsible if they misuse it.If narcotics were sanctioned people should expect these substances to be safe.They are not,so how could they be knowingly sold for human consumption?
"ALL heroin is sold in diluted ("cut") form and there is NO evidence that ANY user has tried to re-concentrate it."
Good point there,but that does not hold true for cocaine.The common refinement of coke into crack lends some creedence to my point.
"When your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are either claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom or you are simply babbling. Which is it?"
You are confusing rational thinking with end consequences in mind with babble.
"This is true right now of alcohol and tobacco---and yet despite your professed principles you support their legality."
You can't accept that I feel these two legal drugs have different characteristics than narcotics.
If narcotics were sanctioned people should expect these substances to be safe.They are notNeither are alcohol and tobacco.
"ALL heroin is sold in diluted ("cut") form and there is NO evidence that ANY user has tried to re-concentrate it."
Good point there,but that does not hold true for cocaine.The common refinement of coke into crack lends some creedence to my point.
It lends credence to your point only if people are buying powder cocaine and making their own crack; how "common" is that?
"When your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are either claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom or you are simply babbling. Which is it?"
You are confusing rational thinking with end consequences in mind with babble.
<sigh> Do you understand that when your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom?
"This is true right now of alcohol and tobacco---and yet despite your professed principles you support their legality."
You can't accept that I feel these two legal drugs have different characteristics than narcotics.
What you FEEL is irrelevant to proper public policy; the politics of feeling is quintessential liberalism.