I rush to point out that Phelps doesn't have a legal problem, he has an image problem.

We can legalize recreational narcotics all we like, but changing people's attitudes about them is something else entirely. Company's don't like to hire smokers, tokers or drinkers, and for a very good reason--the health insurance is a killer. Drug abuse is just bad news--legal or not, but illegality serves to mitigate its worst social effects.

Companies in fact do hire smokers, tokers, and drinkers, as long as their lifestyle doesn't affect their job performance.

Decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana would help ease the prison population in addition to what Sarah said. That would be an added bonus. Studies have shown that MJ is not a "gateway" drug.

Just because something is socially unacceptable to me (or anyone else), doesn't mean that it should be illegal. With that comes intrusive government into aspects of our lives that we consider private.

Your first comment is erroneous. I am very sure you cannot give a single instance of a company hiring a known alcoholic or drug-abuser.

Your qualification is also erroneous. Studies universally show that even mild to moderate consumption of drugs and alcohol creates work performance problems. There may be a theoretical drug or alcohol abuser who is just a star performer at work and wasted all night and weekend, but statistically they have twice the performance-related problems that abstainers do. (Cesar Fax, The Center for Substance Abuse Research, University of Maryland , citing “Corporate
Drinking Study Finds Relationship Between Alcohol Use and Work Performance.” February 8, 1999 ,
Volume 8, Issue 6.)

40% of all industrial accidents involve either drugs or alcohol. (Alcohol and Other Drugs in the Workplace: Costs, Controls and Controversies, Bureau of National
Affairs, 1986, p.7.)

The stats for workers compensation claims and absentism are similarly dismal, often four and five times as high as other employees.

The bottom line is the drinkers and tokers are bad for business--whether their recreation use is legal or illegal.

Its also untrue that the prisons are full of drug users. Every state that I know of has drug courts that focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Prison is a last resort, and usually involves other criminality incidental to the drug use.

My neighbor has two children she adopted--a boy and a girl. They look like twins because they are the same size, but the boy is two years older. When family services finally took the kids out their home, he was three years old but looked like a one year old. Victimless crime--not so much. My neighbor isn't quite as liberal as you are about drug use. After what she's been through with her four kids (all adopted from drug families) she thinks drug users should be sterilized if not shot.

Another friend in the neighborhood has a nephew and niece recently orphaned. Their father committed suicide, and a year later so did their mother. Drugs again.

I find talk of enhanced tax revenues positively repulsive on this subject. The devastation I've personally seen because of drugs makes it an obscenity. I know I can't stop people from experimenting with drugs, but I think society has a moral and practical obligation to mitigate the problem as much as humanly possible. If that means keeping them illegal, then I'm for that.