Then you have no problem with a drug test to receive social assistance?

What about a waist measurement, non smoker, non drinker, can he afford contraceptives?then he dont need assistance.OHH his nose is dripping,what planet are you from zog..COME ON ANSWER MY QUESTIONS..WHAT ABOUT SMOKING AND DRINKING?

So you want to criminalize smoking and drinking?

Do you consider smoking, drinking and shooting a self harming pastime?

Shooting yes, the other two no.

Smoking the past time of the middle class business man, the drug of the masses.It causes more deaths..400,000... in America every year more than dope cocaine,alcohol,heroin, murder, suicide motor accidents fires PUT TOGETHER.....it cost the American economy 45 billion dollars a year.
Now my little feathered friend who abuses the tax payer more a few dope puffers or your average Joe smoker?

So you are saying that one unjustness excuses another, smoking is legal so marijuana should also be, there is murder, so that justifies my murder?

No my friend it is you that is accusing the dope smoker of abusing the tax payer and recommending he takes a drug test before he receives benefits.With that in mind should the smoker receive benefits? should he be targeted as a drug taker? should he contribute more in taxes as he is drain on amenities?When you consider smoking it is more addictive than heroine more dangerous than any other drug ,why do we spend so much effort and money on criminilizing drugs? Dont you get it yet ? Its basic economics.We spend more on combating drugs and criminilizing them than if we legalised them.Its the height of stupidity treating the most serious drug with immunity while criminalizing the least offensive.

So you are saying that one unjustness excuses another, smoking is legal so marijuana should also be, there is murder, so that justifies my murder?

it's not a question of excusing each other. All that's being sought, if you want to look at it that way, is consistency in law. While tobacco and alcohol are legal, and drugs, especially marijuana, are not, that is wildly inconsistent policy making and undermines the law as a whole.

That's exactly what that means. Another law is irrelevant to this law. "consistency in law" is not a relevant argument.

So what is relevant to you the facts or your inbuilt prejudice to trying a different method of combating drug abuse.No ones advocating the use of drugs, just suggesting the current method of containment is not working and its costing more to combat the problem than to resolve it sensibly.

Drug Trafficking Essays and Articles at eNotes dont just pass it by, read this and make a reasonable comment about the costs mentioned and the zero effect of all that tax payers money spent.That money could have cured every drug addict for the next sixty years..It aint working..

Even if I acknowledge every cent that could be saved there, the cost of lost productivity is not factored in by legalization proponents.

Au contraire, I'm here solely to consider alternatives. Responding to your posts mainly keeps me from doing that.
I was responding to the costs of fighting drug trafficking. That might be true, though it is probably shamelessly overblown as everything on this topic, but you can't just ignore the costs to society. Druggies cost us a lot, and because of socialism, us others have to pay that.

Even if I acknowledge every cent that could be saved there, the cost of lost productivity is not factored in by legalization proponents.

The costs of fighting drug trafficking is pronounced by government..now show me the figures that tax payers pay because of drug addicts addiction?the figure you are so concerned about, you must know it,you moan about it enough.

Au contraire, I'm here solely to consider alternatives. Responding to your posts mainly keeps me from doing that.
I was responding to the costs of fighting drug trafficking. That might be true, though it is probably shamelessly overblown as everything on this topic, but you can't just ignore the costs to society. Druggies cost us a lot, and because of socialism, us others have to pay that.