But you said you were against the government taking away personal freedoms. What if someone wanted to drive drunk?
Are you saying there should be some limit on the personal freedoms people allow? Like you say here:
So what you're essentially saying is that we should not give up any freedoms, yet laws against driving drunk are OK.
(FTR, I do not condone driving drunk, I'm merely using it as an example to show everything is not black and white)
The point of government is to protect its citizens above all else. I fail to see how regulating ILLEGAL DRUGS does not fit that requirement, especially when there is significant medical evidence to the fact that some of those drugs can cuase serious health risks. Maybe not marijuana necessarily, but there are illegal drugs that can cause death on the first usage. Again, all or nothing, remember.
You have the freedom of speech, yet you still can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Why? To not cause a panic and protect people from harm.
So we'd all be safer if all drugs were legalized? Remember, YOU can't pick and choose what drugs are legal and what drugs aren't because in your view, that inhibits freedoms.
Again, until you can empirically show me otherwise, I'll go with the thought that there is no positive correlation between the legalization of drugs and the drop in crime rate.
I don't support the Patriot Act at all. However, the government was acting in the way they thought they could best protect the citizens of this country, which is thier number 1 job. It's too bad the people running the show don't know what to do. The theory behind their practices is sound, their execution was not.