Why Is It That Proponents of Drug Prohibition Always Argue Against the Strawman of the Drugs Themselves?

Question by The Daily Elitist: Why is it that proponents of drug prohibition always argue against the strawman of the drugs themselves?
I don’t think any sane person would say it’s a good idea to use cocaine, heroin, or meth. However, I have never once encountered a single proponent of prohibition who has actually been able to provide any sort of substantive defense of their position. Here’s a typical conversation:

Me – “I understand that these drugs are dangerous; my point is that the POLICY of prohibition not only fails to get rid of the drugs, it actually makes them more dangerous to the user, encourages gangs and violence, subsidizes drug cartels by restricting supply in the short-run, and costs society hundreds of billions of dollars a year.”

Drug Warrior – “Yeah, yeah, whatever. I don’t care what you say, people should not be smoking crack. Drugs are bad. There’s no such thing as responsible meth use.”

They always fail – deliberately or not – to argue FOR prohibition; instead, they always argue against the strawman of dangerous drugs. Are they being disingenuous, or are they really just too stupid/ignorant/brainwashed to recognize that people opposed to the wanton squander of taxpayer dollars are nearly always opposed to drug use as well?

Best answer:

Answer by CogDecree
lol, talking about arguing against a straw man, you just created one with your example.

-possible negatives with legal drugs-

negligence of family

diversion of money

interfering with developing minds

Edit:

True, but legality would incite a bigger drug using base. Most people respect laws / fear consequences.

Thus a wider spread of the problems listed would occur if all drugs were legalized.

Answer by A.Y.N.I.L.
No, I wouldn’t either until I did.
Go ahead, legalize everything.
I am self-rehabilitated.

Give your answer to this question below!