[Know your rights]

a do-gooder that's totally responsible for the actions of others like Al Capone and Bin Laden.

"Totally"? Far from it ... nobody said that. But anti-drug laws inflate the profitability of drugs and channel those profits into criminal hands. It may have felt good to say Al Capone was a nasty guy ... but it did more good to end Prohibition.

[Che Chihuahua]

Alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and early 1930s was a tough concept to sell to the American people. Because unlike most drugs, alcohol was previously legal. Alcohol is also generally legal in most cultures and countries. Moreover, alcohol has some nutritional value, e.g., beer was used by the ancient Sumerians to preserve grain and, in moderation, wine has been shown to have positive health benefits.

Yes, I know that there is a medicinal use for marijuana. However, it is still considered a Schedule I, D., (Hallucinogenic) drug. I posted previously, and it was ignored, that the feds should either make it a Schedule III drug (controlled use) and let the pharmaceutical companies make it for those who need it. Alternatively, let the tobacco companies make marijuana cigarettes, get the tax revenues and the so-called quality control that comes with standardization. We could even do both, so long as the plan of action for legalization is well thought out. This is hardly a "do-gooder" position. Because with legalization comes positive and negative consequences. Think about the dumb ass Mass judges that okayed gay marriage and forgot to consider the negative consequences of a gay divorce, e.g., who gets the adopted kids in a divorce? There's a case in Virginia about that issue now.

BTW, the poster-poseur was calling me a "do-gooder" without knowing the basis for my beliefs. S/he adamantly defended drug use, while piously and emphatically maintaining that s/he was not a drug user. My main gripe with the laissez-faire, pro-legalization libertarian argument is that it is an unreasoned, primarily emotional and self-centered approach, "My personal freedom, yadda, yadda, yadda." These arguments are much like those used by an adolescent when he tries to tell his parents to treat him like an adult without assuming the responsibilities.

Finally, Dr. Friedman's economic argument for legalization is based on a false assumption that government will save or wisely spend the money that would have gone to a wasteful program. Liberal-Marxists argued in the same vein in the 1970s about the space program and the Vietnam War. Did you see an end to poverty or any tax cut (until 1982) when we stopped "wasting money" on those budget items? Eliminating crime by simply making it an non-crime is doublethink at its worst. It also reminds one of a crooked Enron accountant cooking the books by creating phantom profits.