Arguments I come across certain types of people when it comes to legalizing either narcotics or firearms is "Do you really need an ak-47 to go hunting or defend your home" or "there's no evidence that marijuana alleviates symptoms that other medications don't" or "do you even need LSD?"

Well, truly, we don't need anything but food and water.  This is proven because of Biology, and I know some philosotards would probably create some argument for or against that that would completely miss the point, so let's not go there.

But why is it that we must prove that something is necessary in order to eliminate the regulations, restrictions, and bans on these goods and services?  Do we need prostitutes?  Some people feel they do.  Hell, I know someone who I'm sure needs prostitutes.  But proving this necessity to the government is a bit tricky, and this is why it's completely illegal in 49 states.  The States don't see prostitution as necessary, and they find it immoral enough to keep it illegal.  Unless we can somehow prove that it's absolutely necessary or would even provide the community with more "good" than "harm," prostitution is going to remain illegal.

Same with drugs.  Medical marijuana is a joke.  Both anti-pot Conservatives and pro-pot Liberals will tell you that.  Medical Marijuana is definitely good for you, but all it does is create major red-tape for the markets that take advantage of medical marijuana.  It keeps marijuana from becoming what it should really be, completely legal and unregulated.  But marijuana is the least of our problems.  Slowly but surely people are figuring out that it's a harmless plant and it's absolutely bullshit to keep it illegal, but what about the other drugs that are illegal?  I'm talking about cocaine and mdma, stuff that people find to be dangerous.  These drugs will seem to always be justifiably banned just because their seems to be no benefit from the substances themselves.  Now, we can debate all day about the benefits of MDMA and LSD, but what good is it to politicians and anti-drug advocates who don't know dick about science?

Proving that the drugs have any benefit at all should not be the only way to legalize a product.  The War on Drugs has wasted billions of dollars, ended and destroyed millions of lives, and has done absolutely nothing to keep drugs out of the hands of anyone (drugs today are cheaper, purer, and easier to get, yet the powers of government to continue this war has steadily increased).  As dangerous as drugs may seem to people or even a community, the attempt to keep them out of the hands of people has been far more detrimental with no results to show any worth.  And back to civil liberties, why is it that only wholesome goods and services can be considered worth legalizing?  Mostly, why do we have to prove to a bunch of bureaucrats that a product or service