Yes, it does actually. It was with divorce, it was the same with alcohol. By legalizing it, the society essentially condones drug usage and doesn't see it as anything to be discouraged.

Not always, and when alcohol was illegal, there were more pubs and speak eases then there are now. Having them be illegal does not decrease the amount of users.

If someone ruins their life with drugs, he will practically always become a burden to his friends, family and society. I can already imagine some poor guy bleeding to death after a mugging gone bad because the ambulance is busy patching up some punk who overdosed.

First off, the emotional burden on their friends and family should not be taken into account when your deciding what should be legal and what shouldn't be. Secondly, they really only put a burden on society if society is forced to support them.

Perhaps if all the users sign a register, where they give up their rights to societal protection - then we may start talking about legalization. Basically, the society and the government is not obligated to spend societal resources to patch up users who overdose. Let the users be responsible for their risks.

Society and government are not responsible, I don't think they should be.

And this strong criminal underworld is being fought. Your alternative is essentially to provide competition on the market against the cartels - by offering cheaper, more accessible drugs. Sure, the amount of users definitely won't increase.

1. it not being fought very well, actually, I would even dare to say that they are winning this "war on drugs"

2. the competition would put them out of business almost immediately

3. the amount of drug users should not be an issue, what they do is none of your damn business. But lets say it is (which its not) why don't you take a look at places where drugs have been legalized and the comparison between drug legalization and drug prohibition.

By legalizing drugs, you would also be legalizing the said criminal operations. So yeah, in a way you are actually fighting crime - by legalizing it.

When these criminal operations grow weed or shrooms, no one cares, no one gets hurt and no one dies. When the "hey thats illegal" patrol shows up, then people start getting hurt and killed. Just because something is illegal does not mean it is bad and the only bad thing about these organization is that they are violent, why? Because they have to be, its the nature of the black market vs law enforcement.

No, not everyone would do heroin, but heroin would be readily accessible for anyone curious enough to try without the fear of legal consequences. To think that the amount of users would not increase is naive.

For you to think that heroin isn't already accessible is very naive. You know how rug dealers make money, they DEAL DRUGS and they are always looking for new customers. Seriously, drugs are not hard to get your hands on now, there is just no quality control which is the main cause for most overdoses.

Secondly, this comes down to the age old question - can we really trust individual people to use these substances responsibly?

Doesn't matter, individual freedoms come before order. Using drugs is a personal choice, not some issue that is decided far off in a land of bureaucrats and lobbyists.

The analogy is with gun laws - if people are responsible, private gun ownership shouldn't be a problem. Same with drugs. However, life shows that a single individual is enough to cause a tremendous tragedy by being irresponsible and abusing his rights.

People abuse their rights? No? Really? I would have never known! If someone murder another human with a gun, and you ban guns, its very likely he would have gotten a gun of the black market (putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage) or would have killed him with his fists or another weapon.

However, life shows that a single individual is enough to cause a tremendous tragedy by being unresponsible and abusing his rights.

This seems to be the basis of a lot of your argument. You don't trust the people to make choices for themselves so you want the federal government to regulate their choices.

But life has shown that an individual can cause a tremendous amount of tragedy with a gun, or with a car, or with fast food, or with a matchbook. People can abuse their freedom to cause harm to themselves and other people in pretty much every regard, and your argument, if I'm understanding it right, is to take away freedom. You're just applying it very narrowly to this one issue, but by the same logic (for example) nobody at all should be allowed to drive cars because a few people have caused tragedy with their cars.

Instead of trying to make choice illegal (people will make their choices regardless of the law), why not legalize, regulate, and educate to help people make the best possible choices in the safest possible way? Some people will fuck it up because some people always fuck up, in every area of life, but the general population doesn't deserve to be penalized for the possible future actions of a few.

Basically, the society and the government is not obligated to spend societal resources to patch up users who overdose. Let the users be responsible for their risks.

So anytime anyone partakes in a possibly risky activity for recreational (or medical; we are talking about drugs, here) purposes society shouldn't be responsible for any harm the incur? If someone is enjoying a Sunday drive and they smash up their car and are trapped, bleeding out, in the wreck, you propose society and the government does nothing to help them?

By legalizing it, the society essentially condones drug usage and doesn't see it as anything to be discouraged.

Yeah, sure, because that's so true of the two legal drugs we already have in the US, alcohol and cigarettes. Not. Just on my way to work I pass several pieces of anti-smoking propaganda on buss-stops and billboards. All throughout health classes in my primary education I learned about the evils and dangers of booze and nicotine, and yes those things are legal in the US.

And this strong criminal underworld is being fought. Your alternative is essentially to provide competition on the market against the cartels - by offering cheaper, more accessible drugs.

No, that implies the criminal underworld would still exist. Have you ever bought black-market moonshine? Have you ever met anyone who has? Of course not. Because alcohol is legal, the black market for alcohol is next to nonexistent.

I can't speak for all drugs, but the marijuana I buy from state-regulated organizations is a lot more expensive than the weed I can get off the street. So I don't know on what basis you think drugs will be cheaper post-legalization.

And they would also almost certainly be less accessible. Drug dealers don't give a fuck who they sell to (so long as it's not a cop, I suppose); comparatively, if those same drugs were sold in stores, there would be limits on age and quantity and the like. And, more importantly, there would be regulations on the drugs themselves, meaning no more intrinsically unsafe drugs. No more meth/crack in your MDMA, if you catch my drift. Like how the illegally produced alcohol during prohibition caused people to get sick and go blind; that kind of shit doesn't happen anymore because alcohol is illegal.

So even if we have reason to believe overdoses would increase due to an increase in number of users, we have equally good reason to believe they would decrease (perhaps to the points of balancing out; perhaps to even less than per-legalization) because of the introduction of regulation, education, and safe production.