"No one knows what the consequences of legalizing drugs in the USA today would be because it has not happened, so to say it would be an improvement is pure speculation and an unwarranted assertion."

And rounding out, we have argument ad ignorantum. Come on, if you're going to crusade against pot for making people dumb, you need to mind your logical hygiene. Any valid reasons for predictions about the effects of decriminalization would have to come from looking at places where it has happened. When you say "every reason," I suspect you mean: every speculation that harmonizes with what you wish to believe.

Obviously pot has social acceptance among some and is unacceptable among others--just like alcohol at the time in question.

Since, as you say, pot has social acceptance, are you saying its ok to use? Does this apply to you also?

That something is ok to do does not FOLLOW from widespread social acceptance of it. I think it's ok to use in places where it is legal, on grounds of autonomy of the individual, liberty of consciousness -- not just because a lot of people think it's ok.

In places where it is illegal, using it is not ok, but ONLY because it is illegal, so that using it violates the social contract -- not because of any inherent vice in using it.

No... The kung fu guy? I'm as far from being an expert on him as possible. But again, anecdotes are not evidence.

You state here that lawbreaking behavior doesn't equate to self or socially destructive behavior. But in the above post you state it does violate the social contract.

Which one is it then?

I don't doubt the conclusions you drew about your own life from your own experiences; I just am wary of generalizations. For every activity X you can find some person Y who turned X into a shit-storm and a Z for whom X was a life-enhancer. I know from my own acquaintances that not every user of pot becomes alienated, irresponsible, or mentally sluggish. Consider as an analogy the Internet. It's one of the most important developments in human history, with benefits too numerous and pervasive to describe. Yet I'm sure many of us read the story about that couple in Reno who let their children starve in filth while indulging their addiction to online games, Myspace, etc.

You're right about the law being there to protect us and the stupid from the stupid -- I think we just disagree about the legitimate scope of the law. In my country, harsh drug penalties have resulted in the largest per capita incarcerated population in the world, and a lot of wasted police resources. The law's way of tracking whether people look out for themselves or inflict costs on others is arbitrary -- severe punishments for activities whose most strident opponents have trouble finding any evidence of the asserted harm, and no restrictions on how many cheeseburgers Fatty can order (even though we know beyond doubt that the social costs of obesity are gigantic, almost as high as those of tobacco). I am NOT in favor of the liberty to free-ride or otherwise inflict costs on others, because of drugs, cheeseburgers, whatever.... I'm just questioning whether restrictions on liberty are being drawn arbitrarily, punishment meted out without sufficient reason.

It's both. Not every breach of the social contract has social costs (is socially destructive) -- this is the point of the example of private sodomy. Obedience is part of the obligation created by social contract, so any misdemeanor is a violation of it, and I acknowledged elsewhere the threat to rule of law in picking and choosing which laws to obey.

If it is still unclear, just consider that not every breach of a literal contract is destructive to the contracting parties, either. You can't sue me for violating a contract we made unless there are DAMAGES. Indeed we have a notion of "efficient breach" -- occasions where breaching the contract is economically sound thing to do, where we as a society would want the bound party to breach. And of course it is easy to construct examples where we'd want someone to breach the social contract by breaking the law.

Re-read my post that you actually quoted.

I said NO ONE KNOWS what the consequences of legalization would be one way or another.

What you are saying then is that it is ok to use drugs even if they are illegal beacuse there may not be any social consequences as long as you are not caught?

No -- I'm saying what I said, which was clear enough the first time. And I've already hogged this debate enough without any noticeable dialectical progress.

My first sentence was a statement of OPINION based on personal experience.

My second sentence was pointing out the absurdity of using caffine in this argument - which you did (and it is absurd).

In the post I was responding to you slid from discussing pot to making non-specific statements about "drugs."

No, you are not clear. You advocate drug use on the one hand, then you say it is not ok, then you talk in circles and construct all sorts of excuses for using, then say its not ok, then its probably harmless, etc.

Take a stance. I am asking you directly: Do you use drugs and do you advocate using them?

Ok, I'll correct my wording: it is a flawed analogy.

In the USA driving drunk IS illegal.

There are no circles in what I said. If it was not clear to you, I can't assume the problem is me. I already said I use caffeine and lots of it. If someone seems sluggish, I will probably advocate his trying coffee. I like a glass of wine, sometimes two. I have tried many other things, judiciously, including enough acid in high school to be "legally insane" according to the old wive's tale on that subject.

I neither advocate nor condemn the use of any particular drug by any particular person. I advocate responsibility, but also independence of mind. People should pursue the experiences that will enrich their lives and actualize their virtues and values (which may include curiosity), as long as they aren't inflicting costs on others.

Your answer is crystal clear now.