The principles underlying my political stances, to answer Mike, are derived from the fact that individuals have the right to their own life, liberty and the pursuit of their happiness--even if the decisions they make are immoral, wrong, and self-destructive. So long as one does not impinge on the rights of others to do the same, the government should not intervene. Driving under the influence, endangering the welfare of others and the like are all legitimate crimes and would be prosecutable offenses as they are with alcohol and other activities today. To further clarify my position, answering Carrie from Gibsonia's questions, only mentally competent adults have the ability to fully exercise their rights (children and mentally incompetent adults have surrogates to exercise their rights, i.e. parents and guardians) and I am in way advocating that illicit substances (including tobacco and alcohol) be made available to children, though currently a substantial portion have experimented with these substances prior to high school graduation as teenagers do tend to be less risk averse than adults. Drug abuse is a terrible societal ill that damages the individuals engaged in the activity, however, destroying the basis of rights to combat the problem is counterproductive and fundamentally at odds with the founding principles of this nation. Lastly, to answer Andy, though many have engaged in logical fallacies in the support of their positions I have never knowingly utilized circumstantial ad hominem attacks, but have tried to employ principles based on reality-based reasoning.