>>107
You remind me of far too many Americans who are unable to construct a logical argument to save their lives.
When you commit an act of a true criminal nature, it's still a crime and thus actionable on that basis. WHY you did the crime is irrelevant. You stole stuff or beat someone, and so you'll have to be prosecuted for it.
That is unlike drugs, which are just something you do to yourself. THOSE should not be illegal at all.
And as for the addicts committing so many crimes, you'll note that there is a fairly direct relation with the high costs of drug addiction. By making drugs illegal, you increase their costs and drive the users into a criminal trade by default. Criminal acts are very likely to follow. In contrast, a European-like model of MEDICAL treatment of drug addiction creates a far more docile addict population. They spend less on drugs and aren't pushed into the criminal fraternity in the first place.
Of course, nothing I just said made any sense to you, since you just can't imagine (in the full blossoming of your Ugly Americanism) allowing an addict to take their drug of choice without being seized by a cop for that very act. In short, you just don't know what you're talking about, since you're talking about how you WANT things to be, and not how things ARE.
The simple fact is that
taking drugs is well within the scope of personal liberty. We should allow people to have that liberty. And if they abuse the rest of us for whatever reason, then we have cops and courts and jails waiting for them ... and we'll have plenty of capacity, since by making drugs legal we free up a lot of that capacity and toss out the nonviolent "drug offenders" who fill our jails.