Prohibition was primarily the work of one pressure group

> Heroin for example is a serious threat for physic and mental health isn't?

Heroin is comparable in risk profile to morphine, and is significantly weaker than fentanyl, both of which are frequently prescribed for pain management. Most of the risk of use comes from addiction, which causes other risky behaviors, and contamination. Both of these risks are poorly-mitigated by criminalization of heroin: addicts rarely want to be addicted, but have difficulty seeking help due to criminalization and social stigma, and contamination would be preventable if heroin were manufactured in regulated facilities.

Uneducated and influenceable people currently consume heroin, not realizing their act. The war on drugs has done nothing to prevent this, and in fact has made it harder for people to find real information on heroin. A regulated product could have messages printed on the packaging similar to the way that cigarettes currently do.

The point is that drug policy is not targeted towards harm reduction or safety, but towards the demonization of the drugs, which means there's possible improvement if we stop doing that.

Edit: Mayne pharma 2014 did 4% of its ~$113M in US products in methamphetamine. So that's 4.5M from a single generic maker. Could mean the total is well over 9-10M annually.

1: Including hydrocodone, except if you mix hydrocodone with a liver-toxic drug like APAP, then it magically drops into the lesser Schedule III. Because screw people.

Yes, you risk addiction. You risk ruining your life. But you do too with a lot of existing drugs. Alcohol comes to mind.

The point is, with legal heroin, meth will be an ever-shrinking problem.

Sin? Really? Laws need to be based on reason, not dogma; sin is religious dogma and has no place in law. If that's your only argument against drugs, then you have no real argument against drugs.

> If you ask anyone involved in the anti-drug business, both directly and indirectly, they will tell you that drugs are serious problem in this country

Of course they will, their paychecks depend on it, that doesn't make it true and you shouldn't be looking to those who personally gain from the anti-drug business as a trusted authority on the drugs. They have incentive to lie to you; incentives matter, look to science, not business, for real answers.

> KEEP DREAMING! The legalization of marijuana in Colorado did not get marijuana dealers into legal territory.

It got marijuana users into legal territory, which is what's important.

If not you are a hypocrite. I have alcoholics in my family and I've also known users of other "hard" drugs, and alcohol is certainly as bad as cocaine or heroin.

[citation needed] because this is where you really go off the rails and I have a sense that it's part of your argument's foundation.

There is no such thing as sin, legally, and there's something to be said for letting people do what they want to do. If the government wants their taste to handle problems (and more, natch), then that comes as no surprise.

There are all kinds of things that do people varying degrees of "harm" and are legal. Jogging and sugar come to mind.

It helps that we're freaking huge, the NRA has 5 million dues paying members now, and influences 100 million plus gun owners.

We have "no enemies to the Left" or Right, political party, sexual orientation (http://www.pinkpistols.org/), you name it, as long as you're not plotting to violently overthrow the government.

You're correct, and I am aware because it comes up all the time.

My off-the-cuff comment was more about the membership I've encountered than the official organization.

The latter turns out not to be the case. Yep, they allowed it for full auto weapons, and AP ammo, but for the first time ever refused to sign off on any and all "assault weapons" bills when that mess started in the late '80s.

Otherwise, yeah, the "compromise" a lot, so much that I'm not a current member and have an alert set for 10 years having passed since they last tried to sell us out. Still has a few years left.

Assuming you mean "They're", nope, they signed off on the ban of AP ammo that can be shot from a handgun, which means all AP ammo short of, say, .50 BMG, which I'm pretty sure would pulverize anyone's hand, wrist and arm.

As for "the lack of anti-military hardware makes the second amendment almost pointless.", you suffer from a lack of imagination:

The small arms we're all allowed to own everywhere but NYC and D.C. are quite sufficient to procure the heavier stuff.

Being able to reach out and touch someone from 800 yards and more means something serious.

The US has never fought a war without a secure rear area.

There are many, many other things small arms make more achievable. Like making it too expensive to do a lot of things en masse; as Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it in The GULAG Archipelago:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria [Government limo] sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked.

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

Millions of like minded American citizens could certainly make things difficult for the US military in a guerrilla war.

The British military thought the same about a bunch of hicks with a few rifles living on the east coast of America. America's military thought the same thing about a bunch of tribal shepherds in Afghanistan. The point is, you don't need to match a military on hardware to defeat them.