Why should any drugs be illegal?

Drain cleaner, by the way, is not an illegal drug, so your example is a non sequitur to the proposed subject of the thread.

Whatever you do in the privacy of your home, without otherwise attracting the unwanted attention of law enforcement agents, becomes moot in such a discussion--the state has no enforcement opportunity.

You have a single example from the state of Arizona. One swallow does not a summer make.

If you do it in your home, and are not otherwise attracting public attention, it is highly unlikely that you'll be arrested or prosecuted.

if he ends up in an emergency room and I have to pay for it - well - I start to think differently

I think health care is relevant to the question, but it gets sticky. I have mixed feelings because I get a bad taste in my mouth when I hear the phrase "nanny state," but there are obviously a lot of adults out there who could use nannies.

I'm not sure what you're getting at in your last sentence.

The subject at hand is about more than just possession. It's about consumption.

In the first place, the number of places which prohibit you from using drain cleaner as a drug is not relevant.

It is not illegal to purchase or possess drain cleaner, even if it is illegal to use it as a drug in some jurisdictions. So, no, there is nothing for me to be satisfied about--it's not relevant.

I well understand that the subject is about consumption--i don't need you to tell me that.

I've already pointed out the compelling interests a state has in restricting or forbidding drug use.

The titular question is why drugs should be illegal. I've answered that.

Apparently, the titular question is rhetorical for you--you want to insist that there is no reason that drugs should be illegal.

I'm asking you a question and I'm also giving you my answer as well. The question is for everyone to answer, including myself. I welcome you to do so. Please give some kind of argument for why drug usage should be illegal, not just in public, but period, including at home.

Perhaps you should modify your title, which does not reflect this - or at least have made that clear in the body of your OP.

He certainly made valid points directly related to consumption and outcomes, which I noticed you ignored.

Govt and community costs directly related to drugs (rather than the fight against them) may include : rehabilitation centres and support agencies, police and ambulance time spent or wasted (in violent, mental, or other effects, rather than processing charges), health websites/info/education programs related to the drug, coronial costs, mental health problems triggered by drugs, health care costs triggered by drugs (which actually may not be a bad thing –saving the cost of old age care), domestic violence, needle exchanges and ‘safe areas’. There’s also an argument for the costs of welfare, and lost productivity. I’m sure there’s more that I haven’t thought of.

It can quite easily be argued that ‘yes but this example, or that example, there is a corresponding cost in this activity, or that activity’. That’s can be quite true, although it’s hard to find any other example that has ALL the effects. Alcohol would be the one similar (though not with the variety of differing problems), which is also a drug.

Having said that – an argument that similar action exist, is not an argument for a specific thing not to be illegal. Pedophilia and adult sex both involve sex, but it’s quite obvious why pedophilia is illegal. An argument that a similar result exists is not an argument that a specific item not exist – shooting and killing someone in the street is a lot different from a soldier shooting and killing someone in a war.

Then of course comes the argument of whether or not you have the right to endanger someone else, or even yourself. The latter is argued by many people, but I daresay the majority prefer you not committ suicide. There is also the fact that it is very rare that any suicide not have a impact on direct family, friends, and even emergency workers.

And then there is the problem where, if you don't die, but you end up damaging vital organs.

And of course there are the social and family costs often associated with drug addiction

The effects of particular drug use and of the habit of particular drug use, even taken in the privacy of your own home, rarely stop at your own home.

The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.

Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.

Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.

"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico...

Do you think people want to possess drugs or consume them? What's the end goal? I think we all know the answer. It should be obvious that this thread is about consumption not just possession.

I don't think I've ignored any of his points but if you think otherwise then you should quote them instead of making bald accusations so that I can correct that oversight.

In other words, drugs cost society money. Alright, then why don't we outlaw overeating, contact sports and other dangerous lifestyle choices that cost society money as well? It's inconsistent.

It doesn't matter if there is a corresponding cost item-by-item. People that become obese obviously won't need to go to a detox clinic. However, these people do cost a lot of money and I'm willing to wager they cost more than drugs would.

Pedophilia isn't a illegal. I assume you meant to say "child molestation" which is illegal. Unlike consensual adult sex, children aren't capable of consenting. Therefore, there is a victim, the child. They aren't similar.

Of course I have the right to endanger myself. That's why skydiving, obesity, alcoholism, unprotected sex and a million other things aren't illegal. There's no question about it.

The effects of particular drug use and of the habit of particular drug use, even taken in the privacy of your own home, rarely stop at your own home.

Do you have any evidence to back this claim up? How exactly is getting intoxicated at home and then leaving when sober going to affect others?

This thread, as stated in your title, and over which you are arguing, is about legality, which involves possession – as a commonality it is not possible to consume without first possessing. Which is why most states make the illegality possession. They make consumption illegal where the item being consumed is not illegal.

That is hardly necessary, considering the body of my post, which reflects many similar points. Certainly only someone intently biased in trying to prove a point would miss them.

You are separating costs from the whole, and the degree. It appears you believe you can argue away each aspect by comparing (with rather poor comparisons by the way), while ignoring the whole, to which little compares.

But for your comparison of costs : Most contact sports have insurance to cover costs, so do not cost as much to society. Kids who do well in sports often do better at school (can’t be said for drugs), and do better socially (if a team sport). Kids who play sport are also generally healthier (apart from injuries that ‘may’ be suffered). Sporting organisations contribute a great deal to the economy.

Overeating would be incredibly problematic to police wouldn’t it. Whereas possessing an illicit drug is fairly black and white.

As in all things, there is a matter of degree involved, so yes, it very much matters if anything else can measure up to the damage/costs.

You didn’t read correctly. There was a key word in there, being ‘action’ – both are similar in that they involve the action of having sex...and yet it’s obvious which one should be illegal.

A skip past suicide as I was talking about, and there’s obviously a plethora of people who disagree with you. It would of course come down to a matter of degree.

You can’t seriously be asking this? Health, family, friends, effects on driving? (I do notice that you had to correct yourself and make yourself sober when leaving the house.)

You also ignored the second part of that particular line of thought, which is that drug use itself rarely stops in the home (ie. look at reality and the whole picture, not your idealised world).

I also note that you ignored other drugs, against which you had a much more difficult line of argument..