>That's less than ideal.

How is it any less ideal than the amount of energy wasted on an individual level sorting, rinsing, and separating all of the different types of garbage?

>Really? Come on; how lazy can you get?

It is likely far more efficient to do the sorting by machine than to have every single person spend time every day sorting it themselves.

>I spent my college years getting a useful degree and paying for it by working during the year and the summer

Yeah, you can't do that anymore. You'd have to have a full time minimum wage job to even come close to paying for college now.

>You have to declare bankrupcy & be able to show 'undue hardship'.

Nope, student loans aren't even dischargable in bankruptcy. You are stuck with them for life.

We all have to give a big thanks to the previous and current presidents for completely giving up the moral high ground on things like domestic spying and secret prisons. Who knows what these Chinese apologists would point to without your help.

> to come up with anything worthwhile to continue attacking with.

You mean besides the fact that it's mostly ridiculous?

Oh, anecdotal evidence! You're so silly.

You know, you can select the color of the light with cfl bulbs. If you don't like the color yours are putting out, pick a different one.

Generally, sitting in a city or county jail cell for contempt of court is going to be preferable to whatever high security prison you'll be in for the felony that's hiding on your encrypted drive. Just keep telling the judge that you don't recall your passphrase and eventually you'll get out since there is no way that it can be proven that you do remember it.

>And maybe the reason that those local stores closed down was from unfair competition - companies like Amazon that didn't have to charge sales taxes.

Here in Seattle, Amazon has to charge sales tax, yet they still have better prices than almost any local store. I think the lack of sales tax everywhere else is just gravy.

>The constitution embodies this while trying to provide for the maximum individual freedom.If such individuals wish to harm many more than themselves by indirectly supporting an economy based around addictive substances can...

Now I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but just in case you're just deluded, yes, the constitution had it right. It doesn't give the federal government any power at all to regulate drug use. It took a constitutional amendment for them to be able to restrict alcohol. The same should be required for other drugs. Besides, you missed my point. Even the most restrictive societies on the planet still cannot stop drug use. You cannot take the real steps that would be required to stop any significant use of drugs without turning the country into a police state. Even then, it wouldn't stop completely.

>Your altered consciousness posses an *EXTREME* higher risk to society than almost anything else I can think of.

No, it doesn't. My altered consciousness doesn't pose any risk to society whatsoever. This has been proved through 20 years of altering it in various ways without causing any trouble for anyone. Your 80/20 rule is crap, since most of those 20 would cause problems with or without substances. Give them treatment, or put them in jail if they continue to cause problems and you'd solve almost all of the problems you imagine are caused by drugs. Incarcerating anyone for the simple act of using drugs is asinine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act

Google time, 4 seconds.

>Yea I may seem a little disrespectful. I've seen so much drug abuse, how it grips a person and destroys families.

If you're working with hardcore alcoholics, I'm sure it's easy to see all alcohol use as horrible even though the vast majority of people can have a glass of wine with dinner and never have any problem. The situation is exactly the same with other drugs. The undue burden on society is caused by their illegality, not the drugs themselves. If a heroin/meth/cocaine addict could get their fix as easily and cheaply as the wino can, what's the problem?

>Remove the 20% of the most harmful substances and realize 80% of the benefit.

Except that that's completely impossible in anything like a free society. People want to alter their consciousness, and as long as they aren't actually harming anyone else, it's none of your business at all and a giant waste of resources to even try. Give treatment to the people who need it, and leave everyone else alone.

>Neither of which are nearly as addictive as opiates

You are completely incorrect. Alcohol withdrawal can kill you, while opiate withdrawal only makes you feel like death.

>Assuming your statement is valid you still have not have addressed the addicts doing whatever they can to obtain the substance in question

Alcohol is both highly intoxicating and addictive. How often do you hear about drunks robbing the 7-11 for their cheap wine?

>It is the addiction that removes freedom.

And the vast majority of people who try any given drug never become addicted. Even heroin has a 5% addiction rate, with most users trying it a few times or only occasionally. If someone is addicted to a drug, treat them for it. If they aren't, leave them alone.