That's not a contradiction at all. People are already free to do all sorts of things that are inherently dangerous; bungee jumping, contact sports, handling dangerous animals, racing cars, flying planes, etc. There are still laws in place concerning the when, where, and how of all these things to reduce risk.

Here's a fun fact: Heroin is the trademarked brand name created by Bayer, the same people who make aspirin. The compound is actually called diacetylmorphine. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that one of the risks associated with illegal drug use, purity, would become irrelevant. I used heroin as an example because it is particularly notorious for being impure. But yes, if you're going to legalize drugs, you can't be picky, especially with the big money makers that are driving the drug war in the first place.

"The ten most dangerous words in the English language are 'Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan

To say that we do not have the freedom to do with our lives and our bodies as we see fit, is to imply that we are property of the state.

Hard drugs bring people downhill fast, real fast, and overdosing is easy. And by the way, Sherriff Joe is the man. Of course, seeing Im going into the Law Enforcement field my view will be different, but I think rapists and murders should live in a tent and eat bologna instead of gourmet. And mr. rapist doesnt get to watch friggin cable and eat cheetos on a couch, he works and does hard time.

Private prisons, a product of the drug war, allow Mr. Rapist to eat Cheetos on a couch.

Legalize drugs, punish more rapists, I think I've made that point a couple of different ways earlier in this thread.

Punish both, and i dont give a shit about drug users, they can be fined and avoid jails. Drug dealers, especially the ones selling to kids and near schools, could get shot for all i care but have a sherriff joe type prison is about all i can hope for.

The point is that you can't punish both, we don't have the resources for it. And legalizing drugs wouldn't mean you can suddenly sell them to kids. Alcohol and tobacco are legal, you can't sell those to kids. The same rules would apply to drugs.

Drug dealers now will sell to kids, whats to keep them from selling to them if there legal? 21-year old joe stoner may be able to stroll into 7-11 but mr highschool kid trying to act cool will still need a source.

The fact that the source would be 7-11, not Ricky down by the corner. If something is legal, you can buy it in a store. I don't go to Ricky down by the corner to score my groceries.

Im saying there will always be a market for illegal drugs especially cheap low grade crap, youd have poor people who need cheaper drugs buying it on the street, kids too young to buy in a store, etc.

The current price of drugs is vastly inflated because they are illegal. Around 1915 you could buy (in a store) one gram of cocaine for 25 cents. Adjusted for modern inflation, that same gram today would cost around $5.25. Because it's illegal, the cost is actually around $100, and by the time it's being sold in those small amounts, you're not even getting one entire gram. It will most likely have been cut with inositol or baking soda to increase the dealer's profit margins.

As for kids, yeah that's going to happen. Not alot you can do about that. I paid a homeless guy to buy me a bottle of Jim Beam when I was 17, the system isn't perfect.

What you're not taking into account is law enforcement's overzealousness to obtain a conviction resulting in the imprisonment and execution of an innocent person. This happens alot. Executions should just be done away with, getting to the point of proving that somebody actually deserves to die is expensive and time consuming and results in a very small number of executions. It's not even worth it. Executing certain people may be justifiable, but in practice it's more about revenge than actual justice.