...as it would be to ban certain kinds of matches in response to methamphetamine production:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9271990.htm

...or to limit purchases of ephedrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Methamphetamine_Epidemic_Act_of_2005

MDPV and Spice products have only rose in popularity because they produce effects similar to illegal drugs. It is worth noting that both of these drugs were simply declared to be illegal by the DEA, which is the same agency that enforces drug laws. It is also worth noting that if you could buy drugs legally, we could give you legally mandated warnings about those drugs -- like a warning that MDPV may induce psychosis.

So your point is what...that someone who noticed that his life was becoming terrifying as a result of his drug use was able to stop using that drug? Your roommate did not kill anyone, and he certainly did not create a hazard waste site on the side of a busy highway.

Sure, methamphetamine can create paranoid delusions in its users. Do the people who sell it for recreational use take the time to explain that to their customers? If you could buy methamphetamine legally, you could be given a warning about the danger of using it -- just like we warn people about the dangers of using alcohol and tobacco.

Note that the methamphetamine that is sold legally, the kind you need a prescription to buy, comes with warnings. It is also produced in a much safer, and much better controlled, manner. You do not have to worry that pharmaceutical methamphetamine is laced with hazardous residual chemicals, a common and serious problem with illegal methamphetamine. It is unusual for a pharmaceutical production facility to burst into flames; it is common for an illegal production facility to explode.

People are going to use methamphetamine recreationally, and we need to accept that as a fact of life. The issue we need to address is the health and safety of the public, both those who use methamphetamine and those who do not. Banning the drug has increased the risk to public health; we can do better.

Without the war on drugs, how would we justify giving the police assault rifles, body armor, grenades, tanks, helicopters, etc?

Has someone eaten some guy's face after using marijuana? What kind of non sequitur are you pushing here?

The truth is that plenty of people die because of tobacco. Children get asthma because of tobacco. Second hand tobacco smoke can cause cancer. Tobacco smoke is far more dangerous than marijuana smoke (yes, really -- marijuana smoke does contain carcinogens, but even heavy marijuana smokers do not show an increased risk of cancer).

Cars kill tens of thousands of people per year, and I can assure you that people's faces have been torn off by cars.

The fact of the matter is that the war on drugs has nothing to do with public safety. Making methamphetamine illegal for recreational use (it is certainly legal by prescription) has actually created a much greater risk to the general public: illegal methamphetamine production. I have never seen a crazed methamphetamine user (I am sure they exist, I have just never seen one), but I have seen a house burn to the ground after the byproducts of methamphetamine production caught fire. Mobile production facilities create major chemical hazards on the sides of highways. I would rather have a legal, regulated chemical plant producing methamphetamine for people to buy over the counter than the system we have today.

Thus explaining why Jews are required to drink wine every week and are required to drink four glasses (definitely enough for almost anyone to at least get a buzz) on Passover. You also forgot about the numerous religions that use psychedelic mushrooms as part of their ceremonies. Religion is not the problem here.

If you want to know why we have a war on drugs, I can think of the following more plausible explanations:

1. Racism. Congressmen were told that black men who used cocaine would becoming unstoppable monsters, that Philipino immigrants would bring their horrible opium habits with them, that white women who smoked marijuana would want to have sex with black men, that crack makes black people crazy, that PCP makes black people crazy, etc.
2. Police militarization. The war on drugs is a great excuse to give police officers assault rifles, body armor, and even military tanks and helicopters (see: 1033 program). The police can also use the proceeds from seized assets from drug arrests in their own budgets.
3. Expanding executive branch power. The Controlled Substances Act allows the attorney general's office to simply declare drugs to be illegal, without any democratic process.
4. Corporate profits. Alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, pharmaceutical companies, firearms companies, prison operators, companies that make surveillance equipment, petrochemical companies, and numerous others have all seen expanded profits because of the war on drugs.

Religion is really a minor issue here. There are a few priests who will pound on their pulpits about the evils of drugs, but their power in the drug war is limited at best.

This is not 100% accurate; Schedule II drugs are supposedly drugs with a high potential for abuse, but which have legitimate medical uses; Schedule I are those with a high potential for abuse, but no legitimate medical uses. Cocaine has use as an anesthetic, and amphetamines have use in treating narcolepsy, ADD, and obesity.

The problem with these schedules, of course, is that things become political hotbuttons. Law enforcement officers want to be able to arrest anyone who possesses marijuana, without having to listen to a story about having a prescription; they view placing marijuana in Schedule II as conceding defeat. MDMA was put in Schedule I despite legitimate medical uses as well, because cops wanted to crack down on hippies, punk rockers, and other subcultures. The war on drugs is more about increasing and maintaining police power than about public health.

That is exactly what we have now. How does this help at all?

We should legalize drugs, and then apply truth in advertising laws to drug packaging. The FDA can evaluate the safety and risks of recreational drugs; the packages should include a summary of that assessment, and drugs which have not been assessed should have a big warning on them. Give people accurate information, not a jail cell, when they want to get high.

You mean like alcohol and tobacco? People use caffeine recreationally, despite the danger in doing so. There are a number of ornamental plants that can be used as a drug.

We need to go in the other direction, and stop banning drugs. We also need to stop letting a law enforcement agency dictate the laws it is charged with enforcing (see: emergency drug scheduling). While we are at it, let's stop having paramilitary police, stop attacking civil rights, and stop having the largest prison population on Earth.

South America? How about right here in the United States? In the 1960s, the FBI was investigating people who dared to take a stand for their own civil rights, looking for ways to discredit them. It was illegal for two men to dance with each other in some states in the 1960s. In the 1970s, the executive branch of government gained the power to dictate some of the laws it is charged with enforcing. The 1970s saw the rise of paramilitary police across the country -- cops who would easily be mistaken for soldiers if their helmets and body armor was not clearly labeled "POLICE."

As opposed to having our homes invaded by men with assault rifles, who shoot our dogs and kill, injure, and terrorize innocent people? I think you need to take another look at what is happening in the United States. We already have the largest prison population on Earth, heavily militarized law enforcement organizations that double as intelligence agencies, and a president who signed into law a bill that allows people to be detained indefinitely without trial, and who has ordered the assassination of US citizens.

So what hypocrisy were you referring to? I think we are doing a fine job of spreading our "democracy."

Note that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg did not stop working; both are continuing to contribute to society as a whole. They are not the sort of parasites who demand that other people work for them and maintain their lifestyles while they do nothing productive.

...because the A-list actors and the studio executives take all the money. The studios go as far as to lie about how much of a profit a movie turned, just to deny money to those who were unsophisticated enough as to ask for a share of the movie's profit, as opposed to gross revenue. If you are trying to make the case that millionaires who retire early are not parasites, Hollywood is probably the worst example you can find.