I applaud James Matson's posts pointing out the logical fallacies inherent in Gloria from Butler's post. As he rightly identifies, she commits the *argumentum ad hominem circumstantial* fallacy by arguing that because people have not experienced what she has, her arguments are valid. Mr. Matson also notes that Gloria also appeals to self-pity, a fallacy known as "argumentum ad misericordiam*, which also equally invalidates her arguments. What this illustrates is that the arguments against decriminalization of drugs stem not from reason, but primarily from an emotion-laden attempt to legislate what others may do to their own body--something that, contrary to John's thinking in his post, is not a legitimate function of government. Rights are inalienable and are not gifts from the government or society. No matter what a majority or a political body thinks, it is a usurpation of power to regulate what a person does to their own body and the resultant black market that has been created in illicit substances is entirely the fault of the proponents of this prohibition--as Cindy from Chicora identified in her post.