> However, [legalizing hard drugs is] socially irresponsible. You've said that - I'm asking how you're defining "socially irresponsible". > I don't think a so

> However, [legalizing hard drugs is] socially irresponsible. You've said that - I'm asking how you're defining "socially irresponsible". > I don't think a society will function as well with a government making clearly adverse narcotics freely available because people want them. Not banning something is not the same as "govt making available". More to the point, those drugs are freely available despite all the laws. I'll ask again. What benefits do we actually get from the drug laws? If you mention availability, you get to show that the laws actually affect it because if they don't, that's not a benefit. Since they are freely available, that's a tough argument to make. Then you get to explain why the benefits that we actually get are worth the very significant costs that we pay. I note that beer distributors don't kill folks over territory.