On May 23, 3:40 am, "Aidy"  wrote:

> > The safety issue is that drugs are safer when legal and regulated.
>
> No, the safety issues I refer to are clinical trials etc.

Most if not all illegal drugs have been well studied.

> The g'ment can't
> just allow the public to ingest something

The public ingests what it wants despite government not "allowing" it
-- that's why drugs are safer when legal and regulated.

> without ensuring the long-term
> risks and dangers are known.  To do so would be irrisponsible.  Look at the
> early days of tobbaco and alcohol advertising.
>
> > Nonsense ... telling you're wife she's ugly is legal but in no sense
> > "condoned."
>
> I think you'll find that in this country, free speech is very much condoned.

You claimed (and have now deleted), "age restricting things never
works....so legalising drugs condones them in a way and younger folk
will be taking them." Telling your wife she's ugly is not "condoned"
in any way that would encourage anyone to do it, so your claim remains
nonsense.

> > Nonsense ... by no report did America's use of the drug alcohol drop
> > when that drug was legalized.
>
> But did the use of still-illegal drugs increase?

That's irrelevant to your original claim (which, again, you have now
deleted), "most people only take drugs *because* they are illegal."
The counterexample of Prohibition disproves that claim.

If you are now making the related but different claim that if some
drugs are legalized the use of still-illegal drugs will rise, the
burden of proof is on YOU to show that this happened at the end of
Prohibition. And, of course, if you can show that you'll have made an
argument for the legalization of all drugs ... which you are certainly
welcome to do.