There is an article in AmericanThinker.com that disagrees with your take on legalized prostituion.

Generally, I agree with your article.

I agree with Mr. Stossel. A society that says abortion is okey dokey, but smoking a joint is worthy of taking your freedom, reputation and job is the very definition of dysfunctional.

Alcohol is okey dokey and it contributes to the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands.

Illegallizing natural substances creates out of thin air a criminal class that should never be. It wastes resources. It is illogical.

Random drug tests are a blantant violation of the 4th ammendment.

But follow the money. IF you legalized all these things then look how many losers would be out of jobs in the government and police and drug testing agencies. I would also imagine that the drug dealers enjoy their tax free status.

It is absolutely crazy the way our laws are structured.

What has always fascinated me about the transplant industry is the only one not compensated is the donor, largely because those who are compensated object to it. The doctors, hospitals, and the agency personal who administer the system seem to make out like bandits but the lowly donor or his family get nothing. Altruism on the part of the donor is demanded. Profit for everyone else is the rule.

I generally agree with Mr Stossel. The fact I disagree with him on some things -- some large things -- yet still enjoy his articles, books, TV programs and lectures shows the difference between the Leftist mind and the Conservative.

I agree that prohibition (government force) usually does more harm than good, and I also have a serious problem with bureaucrats who can't balance a budget nevertheless assuming they know what's best for us in our private lives. That's hubris.

But I really believe Mr Stossel ought to rethink the following argument:

"Illegal drugs do not disrupt the lives of most users, but actually enhance those lives. How do we know? The fact they use the drugs. Moreover, most users are not raving addicts hurting people to get high, but well-adjusted, responsible people."

I believe that argument is a lower rhetorically. It unintentionally paints a false picture of casual drug users. Some years ago a series of commercials showed a woman sitting in her office surreptitiously snorting a line of coke. In walked a young girl, covered in blood. The woman is startled. The young girl gives her name and tells the woman "My whole family was gunned down by drug smugglers so that you could have your recreational line of coke."

Strong stuff. Well-adjusted, responsible people don't use illicit drugs because they don't need to. They're well-adjusted and responsible. I think it's safe to assume Mr Stossel has simply never used these substances himself so he doesn't really understand what goes on in the minds of users. They're not blowing coke or shooting heroin because they're happy and well-adjusted. They're doing it because they're screwed up and the drugs make them feel....something else....for a while. I suppose the exact "something else" depends on the drug.

Sure, people try drugs for the glamor, for the allure, for the element of risk. It's naughty. They go back because they get something out of it, something out of the illusion (or delusion) created by the drug, that they don't feel in life.

I must say, however, the low statistics on regular users versus trial offers both surprising and heartening. Let's do the math on those numbers.

There are 303 million people in America, give or take (man, I'm getting old -- I remember when it was 150 million). 8 million have tried crack. That's roughly 1 in 38 people, surprisingly high. But the column reports only 360k regular users, which is 1/10 of 1% (.1%) which is a shockingly low number given the images we see on TV.

Likewise, a startling 12 million (4%) have tried methamphetamine, while a surprisingly low 300k (.1% again) keep using. Actually, the second number in both cases is misleading. It's not proper to measure the number of regular users against the population the way I did. It's more appropriate (and useful) to measure them against those who sample the drugs. So the repeater number for meth should really be 300k versus 12 million samplers, for something closer to 4%. The numbers for crack should be 8 million samplers versus 360k regulars, for roughly 8%.

Still stunningly low addiction numbers. When we consider that most of the drug-related crime is the result of the drugs being illegal, we're talking about a LOT of crime created by trying to save a very tiny number of people from themselves. Typical bureaucratic bungling of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

"I believe that argument is a lower rhetorically."

That should read LOSER rhetorically. Dang typos ;)