Because you don't seem to have an accurate idea of what heroin is or does, and you're not basing any of your argument on fact, other than the "heroin is very addictive" part.

In my opinion, the fact that it's so addictive makes it more of a candidate for legalisation or at least greater availability, not less. If you have a population of addicts who will do anything for a fix, and the only people who will supply it to them are hardened criminals who are also into prostitution, extortion, theft, etc. what do you think will happen?

I'm basing my arguments on my experience taking care of heroin addicts in inner-city Baltimore. What exactly are you basing your arguments on?

And note that while you are arguing that we should legalize heroin, I'm not taking a position on that. I'm merely arguing (1) that legalization is not going to happen politically so you shouldn't weigh down the marijuana legislation with this, and (2) that heroin is intrinsically devastating even when you remove the drug dealers, etc. Point #1 is based on my hunch, but I doubt many would disagree, and point #2 is based on my experience. Do you have evidence or experience that contradicts mine, or are you just speaking hypothetically?

> I'm basing my arguments on my experience taking care of heroin addicts in inner-city Baltimore.

Nice. Maybe try leading with that next time, instead of "Heroin is a wheelbarrow full of rockets." or something, hey? :)

I'm not arguing point #1 - I'm arguing that your point #2 is flawed. Your experience likely biases you in that direction, since you will have seen the absolute worst cases of addiction, instead of someone like a lawyer or executive who can afford to have a heroin habit without it bankrupting them, or who isn't addicted.

Hey, 'carbocation, does Hacker News still remind you of your first year of med school? ;)

:) more than ever, tptacek. But sometimes, the first year student is me.