In John's recent post he asserts that liberalization of drug laws, which I advocate, would "open Pandora's Box." His argument is based on the fact that people's actions have the potential to impact other people adversely and that those actions should be kept illegal. My position is that drug use--by itself--while extremely irrational should not be illegal. Driving while under the influence of drugs, however, should be (similar to alcohol) illegal. While I agree that actions can impact other people, I do not believe government should legislate preemptive laws against drug use by adults. I believe drug use should be regarded similarly to alcohol use. Furthermore, I think that the illegal status of drugs engenders a more pervasive drug problem in this country as evidenced by the largely non-existent drug problems in countries such as Netherlands.

John also states that my position is unusual, which is not the case. Presidential candidates from both major parties as well as Nobel Prize winning economists have voiced similar positions. So, in a sense, John is correct--I have acquired these positions from my "native land", the United States (the nation of my birth).

Also, for the record I have never requested nor received taxpayer funded grants for my education and was actually subject to reverse discrimination secondary to my ancestry being from an over-represented minority.