I think the assumption you're making with legalization of heroin is that if it is legalized, all heroin addicts will get jobs and pay for their addiction in a mature and responsible manner. I've known plenty of heroin addicts in my time - most of them aren't very at holding down jobs in support of their habit.
If we legalize and use the government to regulate heroin, I think its a safe assumption to make that the heroin sold at the local ******** will be of a consistent "blend" lets say. Unfortunately, for most heroin addicts, a tolerance is developed, leading to the physical need for more. Now is a heroin addict going to simply shell out extra money for two 'doses' or will that person try to find another method of getting a stronger "blend"? The government will still have to wage a war on ILLEGAL drugs. Legalizing drugs just simply changes the fact that the drug is only LEGAL if it is bought from the government. We'll still have a war on ILLEGAL drugs. Not much will really change in my opinion, but this can't be backed up since we haven't legalized heroine yet. Legalizing it will simply make it more available to a wider group of people, some of whom, after LEGALLY experimenting will seek out illegal sources. If you don't believe that at least SOME people will resort to this, you are seriously underestimating the physical effects that heroin can have on people.
Unfortunately we don't have any heroin addicts on this board to chime in.
Your earlier wall of text showed a pretty severe misreading of what I was saying - the examples I gave were counterexamples to a false generalization, not reasons that drug use is good. No argument yet has shown drug use to be conclusively and absolutely bad, so there's not quite as much of a burden on me as you seem to think.
Jeff
Drug use cannot be proved to be undoubtedly bad in absolutely every case. I challenge you to find me ANYTHING that is either absolutely black or absolutely white.
The same wall of text mistakes consequences of the *war on drugs* with the consequences of the drugs themselves - until you can start finding me people who get into gang wars over cigarettes or JD, you're out of luck.
I'm going to make an assumption, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you have not had many encounters with people who are addicted to hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
EDIT: Upon reading this I realize that it may seem condescending and I just want to make clear that I in no way mean it in a condescending or derogatory manner. I fully respect your opinions and the evidence you cite, so none of this is a personal attack in any way - just a mere difference of opinion. I decided to not edit the actual text because that would seem...I don't know...just weird? Ha. Just wanted to clarify myself on that one.
Disclaimer: I may be a bit biased on this subject, I very recently lost a dear friend to heroin addiction. Seeing the effect this has had on his family and friends has significantly changed my opinion on the matter. I firmly believe that legalization would not have changed a fucking thing and he'd still be dead today if it were legal.
But what it boils down to, at least it seems to me, is a difference in opinion in two areas:
1. That people in general are responsible enough to handle their actions when it comes to substance abuse.
2. That hard drug abusers rarely have an effect on anyone besides themselves.
), hard drug users definitely do NOT operate in a vacuum, very often their voracious need for the fix drives them to rob and steal, not to mention brutally take advantage of the kindness of their family and friends (see Tad's autobiography from his crackhead days 
). So yeah, those still most definitely need to be banned IMO! (again, not sure if you're advocating total legalization of everything Jeff, though that seems to be a valid extrapolation from skimming your posts)
