<HTML>Ahhh, an understandable question. Criminalizing drug use gives friends and families of people whose lives get messed up by addiction another lever to try to help them. Criminalizing drug use gives people who suffer direct neglect and other dangers due to someone else's drug use ways to end the harm to themselves or to have others help them reduce the harm. Maybe you are lucky enough not to know anyone whose life is so messed up by drugs they literally cannot take the first steps to help themselves but encounters with the criminal justice system CAN be an excellent way to get these people's attention and sometimes to divert them from self-destruction. The same goes for criminalizing the performance of many activities--driving or piloting a vehicle, caring for children,  while under the influence. I am willing to entertain the idea that one should not criminalize the drugs but only doing nearly all ordinary activities while under their influence. And perhaps I would be entertained to hear, say, a defense of the merits vs the risks of shopping while tweaking (high on meth), but I am not going to look hard for such an argument. I should note I live in a jurisdiction that has a strong system of drug courts that feed into decent but of course underfunded and overstressed treatment programs. I am sure WA penal institutions are full of people serving ridiculous sentences for drug possession, but WA laws are not QUITE as draconian as other states. At least in some areas, cops are also fairly open about how enforcement for simple possession is low priority. All of this makes it a lot easier for me to total up a LOT of REALLY negative effect of meth, the example of choice, and put that into my equation about what I want to tolerate and what I do not. DoreneC PS: By the way I also think politicians and ordinary citizens should be able to admit to SOME drug experimentation as freely as they sometimes admit to speeding without any ill effects to their career. HOWEVER, I also think one should be able to argue one's point without running amok violating the privacy of other people In a message dated 1/25/2003 10:12:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, jthorn65@mchsi.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Subj:Re: Decriminalization of Drugs Date:1/25/2003 10:12:58 AM Pacific Standard Time From:<A HREF="mailto:jthorn65@mchsi.com">jthorn65@mchsi.com</A> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com">lbo-talk@lists.panix.com</A> To:<A HREF="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com">lbo-talk@lists.panix.com</A> Sent from the Internet While I agree the "bad effects" of drugs are detrimental to some peoples lives I do not see how criminalizing that behaviour "helps" them. Drugs are available to anyone who wants them, their legal status has almost nothing to do with their availability. I am not certain what position you are putting forward here. That because meth is illegal meth addicts are better off than they would be if meth were legal? I'm not trying to be a prick, I just don't understand your position. John Thornton </BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>