assertions." These are the arguments you give me against my theory: "Drugs, as a whole, have a corrosive effect on society. Drugs cause crimes. Drugs kill babies, born and unborn. Dugs hurt far more people than just the users." Let me address these one by one and give you a careful explanation. "Drugs, as a whole, have a corrosive effect on society" First of all, I agree. But I could say that about a lot of things. I think that cars have a corrosive effect on society. Did you know that before 1900 there were no car accidents, not one! And did you know that today cars kill more people than any disease or drug in America! I think death is pretty corrosive. I mean think of the grief, the cost of funerals, the hospital expenses, solet's make cars illegal. Think about it, all those children who've died didn't have to die. Cars are just too dangerous and have a corrosive effect on society, don't you agree? I'm comparing stupid stuff right? What he heck do cars have to do with drugs? Everything. The fact is, we have a right to drive cars, no matter how dangerous they are, and we ahve a right to do drugs no matter how lethal they are. We are individuals, not an anthill. Yes, drugs destroy homes and yes, they destroy lives, but to have a crime, you must have an accuser. Society doesn't go up to Joe Shmore and say, "you hurt us." You need to stop looking at this like a collective beehive and see who's being hurt and who's crying. I'm not society, I'm Ronny, and I'm an individual. Government CAN NOT legislate morality. When I say morality, I mean actions in relation to God. I believe God doesn't approve of drugs, but government has no place in that sector. The moment it does, it becomes a theocracy, something to be feared indeed. The old Catholic church burned "blasphemers," saying they were doing God's work, an extreme exampe of "morality police" out of control "Drugs cause crimes" This next argument, (I'm very sorry about going on and on, but htis topic deserves a lot of space.) I think, has an interesting point. I may be alone, but I think PEOPLE cause crimes, not drugs, not guns, not bombs. Making something illegal which has demand causes a black market, every economist knows that. And what do black

markets cause and have always caused throughout history? Crime, blood, death and more violent people who would otehrwise be peaceful. It's very simple. Prohibition follows this pattern. Drugs are made illegal, price goes up, pushers satisfy the demand, users don't have enough money for the drugs, so they steal Mrs. Jones' purse, pushers compete by killing competitors (driveby's) and it becomes a big carnival of cops and robbers. Tell me what did Prohibition of alcohol create? Bootleggers, right, the Mob, a upplier to fulfill the needs. And today we still have the MOb and thousands of street gangs whose existences are built solely on illegal drugs. If drugs are made legal, cocaine would be sold at teh super market for 20 bucks a pound. The Mob and gangs would no longer have any reason to be in the business, unless they want to open a Harmons. There goes teh driveby's, ther goes the theft. I do realize that many people are hurt and killed by users strung out on crank and such. These crimes will happen whether or not drugs are illegal. Even though you are high on something, it gives no excuse for your actions and users should have to pay for their crimes as anyone else would. YOu make the choice to use it, then you accept teh responsibility for your deeds. "Drugs kill babies, born and unborn" Yes they do. And I'll tell you right now that it's wrong, wrong, wrong. The violators should be treated as murderers, first or second degree depending on the circumstances. My argument for these people being criminals is stated above. "Drugs hurt far more people than just the users" Besides the victims, I have already described that there are still more people hurt by drugs. These people are hurt mentally (relationships and families) and can be traumatized by drug use. Child and spousal abuse can be the results of drug use, both physically and emotionally. Instead of demonizing the substance, I say demonize the person making the action with the substance. There are already laws in place which protect people from abuse, we don't need to state the obvious. Abuse is wrong, duh. Another argument that I haven't included is how drug users burden our