More important are unemployment benefits. If somebody wants to smoke himself unproductive, fine. But then I have to pay for that? How would you like that if the tax system was structured in a way to make you pay for it?

Non-addictive drugs are very cool. So far i've done certain drugs (No extremely hardcore drugs, nor no addictive drugs whatsoever), im not going to into exactly which ones, but i've done them numerous times and so far nothing bad has come out of it. I have a good time while i'm under the influence , and that's it. Addictive drugs are a whole different matter and can really control and ruin someone's life. Therefore my thinking on the subject is that addictive drugs should be illegal and recreational non-addictive drugs such as marjuana, or LSD should be at the user's discretion, maybe even requiring supervision. I think the use of some drugs should be legalized even if it requires some set of rules (Ex: supervision) to keep you for doing stupid things and making bad descisions. For me at least, my limits are passed when i try or use addictive drugs such as dope, crack, even tabacco.

I've actually done most drugs except heroin, and I have to say I found the most addictive to be marijuana. Admittedly, I was a very heavy user, but I found the worst withdrawal effects were to be found from deprivation of marijuana. Contrarily, when the time was right, I had no problems quitting cocaine. So you need to be careful when thinking about drugs as well as when using them not to just take the standard portrayal of them as addictive/non-addictive as read - from my own vast experience, I found at least those two to be wrong.

There is a difference between addiction and dependence. One is physiological, and one is psychological. Marijuana can cause dependence, but not addiction. e.g. if you use it because you get stressed out and feel like you can't function without it you are dependent.

Now, how does one go about justifying restriction of a substance (that is, who gets to say you can't do something for your own good and why)? I maintain that no laws should be in place that dictate how one ought to act for their 'own good'. Public intoxication can be justly illegal as it preserves the rights of those who do not want to be put in danger by those who are under the influence, but sale and use cannot justly be illegal.

If a behavior does not directly, physically or economically(not psychologically except in extreme cases) affect another person it should not be illegal. Now, if someone is causing a problem while under the influence, then they should be arrested. If someone is steeling to support their habit they should be arrested, if not then they should be left alone.

Also note that doing drugs in public places can be justly illegal as it could negatively interfere with others.

There is a difference between addiction and dependence. One is physiological, and one is psychological. Marijuana can cause dependence, but not addiction. e.g. if you use it because you get stressed out and feel like you can't function without it you are dependent.

Now, how does one go about justifying restriction of a substance (that is, who gets to say you can't do something for your own good and why)? I maintain that no laws should be in place that dictate how one ought to act for their 'own good'. Public intoxication can be justly illegal as it preserves the rights of those who do not want to be put in danger by those who are under the influence, but sale and use cannot justly be illegal.

If a behavior does not directly, physically or economically(not psychologically except in extreme cases) affect another person it should not be illegal. Now, if someone is causing a problem while under the influence, then they should be arrested. If someone is steeling to support their habit they should be arrested, if not then they should be left alone.

Also note that doing drugs in public places can be justly illegal as it could negatively interfere with others.