>>>I think my opinion has more to do with what I've seen as the result of drug abuse. It has affected everyone, it seems, and not in a good way. I think there is a lot of evidence that almost everyone who has a serious addiction problem to things like meth, crack, etc started out as a doobie brother/sister. Legalizing drugs wouldn't legalize drugs. . . for the population group that is most likely to want them . . .teenagers and younger. They would still be illegal, and abused.
>>
>>That's a pointless stat, John. Almost everyone who has a drinking problem started out on soda pop. The real question is, "What percentage of doobie brothers and sisters end up as serious addicts", not the other way around. If the answer to that question is also "almost all" then maybe you have a point. Otherwise, it's meaningless.
>>
>
>I think there has been substantial research that has indicated grass is a gateway drug, but the main point of my argument is that the largest group of abusers would still be getting it - illegally. Additionally, if you have one bad something like alcohol, why add another bad something to the pot, or maybe I should say kettle?
>
>Now, for some truth in advertising, how many of you partake in glaucoma meds? I'm going to say those who are for legalisation have a vested interest in legalization.

I don't see what one has to do with the other. There are plenty of prescription meds that abused by addicts and social takers illegally -- the illegal access and use is the crime, not the use under a valid legal prescription. As long as a doctor can legally prescribe it, it's legal. That's not the same thing as alcohol being available without a prescription...