You have a lot of misinformation in your post. Statically speaking, states that have legalized marijuana has seen a decrease in teen usage. That argument is entirely nil.
Obviously there are health concerns regarding more illicit drugs, but those can be reduced with proper and safe dosages. Also, if the counter-agent is sold OTC, there'd be way less chances of overdoses.
I believe people should have the right to choose what they put into their own bodies.
Maybe, all my data come from Europe, and especially from France, where it is illegal. I also came many times to Holland (as it is the nearest place where it's authorized).
I was a bit aggressive in my message, because it's a concern that I'm really linked to. I hope I didn't offended you.
I agree with all of your ideas, about black market, danger about uses (asepsis, counter agent) and education.
But there are drugs that aren't nothing to do with human being in a common sense. I mean, do you know a drug called "krokodil"? I take an extreme instance to make me understand easily. The thing is that people that are coming to this drug are already addict people, and as they are starve about the product they used to take, they take this one indeed. I let you google for effects that this one had.
Now, I think there is really two kinds of drugs, recreative ones, that should be allowed, and dangerous ones, that aren't good at all.
This is exactly like drugs (I mean medicine drugs, as beta blockers, immunosuppressors, NSAIDs, corticosteroids, ...) which all have benefits/risks balance. Doctors use these with the knowledge that they could be harmful, and because of that, they are always used to try to get the maximum benefits effects, with minus harmful effects in a special case. But the thing is, that, in this situation, drugs are necessary to cure a disease or a state. So, they take risks because they know about benefits, and they always do it in the best positive balance.
I think it should be the same with drugs, but when it's recreational, it is only to fulfill a desire from the user, so there is no "indication" imo. No real situation that need to use these drugs. And there is still risks.
But with dangerous ones (heroin for me is a really a nice instance), you don't have "enough" good effects to counter risks, and even mid/long terms effects (as inward-looking attitude, paranoia, psychotic effects, skins effects, cardiovascular effects, there is so many...)
So yes, it is important to improve all the conditions to do it safely, but I'm afraid that it could "create" dependance that should be avoid in an other way. I mean, I don't really care that people try to smoke a joint. But that's a really different problem if they try a fix of heroin imo.
But I don't want to make myself judge of the devil "it could create new dependance blablabla", I know the pros and the cons, I'm just thinking as a good father, and I want the best for my children. That's all.
I've never heard of that drug before "krokodil". I took the time and looked it up. Seems like a cheap knock off (10% the effectiveness), dangerous form of heroin ( codeine and iodine derived from over-the-counter medications and red phosphorus from match strikers - yeah, let's just cook that up in my back yard as opposed to just buying the $30 bottle of bills from the store). But when someone mentions drug use legalization, your first conclusion is addiction.
Addition is a disease. Treating a disease is the job of public services (imho).
>Doctors use these with the knowledge that they could be harmful.
Doctors don't always know what's best (at least in America... once they've earned their education, there's no continuing education... so you get doctors still prescribing old antibotics..)...
>Doctors use these with the knowledge that they could be harmful, and because of that, they are always used to try to get the maximum benefits effects, with minus harmful effects in a special case.
Ah, maybe I'm confusing medical doctors with doctoral researchers? I'm not sure why a doctor of medicine would be studying long term effects of any one specific drug. Yes, the obvious short cases exists, but with street drugs, how can you be sure?
>Now, I think there is really two kinds of drugs, recreative ones
I agree. Nuclear waste isn't a drug just like tide pods aren't food.
> that should be allowed, and dangerous ones, that aren't good at all.
I think we can both agree that taking iodine and codeine and cooking it with red phosphorus wouldn't meet even the lowest of standards for drugs, just as mixing bleach and pepsi wouldn't make a good soft drink.
>But with dangerous ones (heroin for me is a really a nice instance), you don't have "enough" good effects to counter risks, and even mid/long terms effects (as inward-looking attitude, paranoia, psychotic effects, skins effects, cardiovascular effects, there is so many...)
No one's suggesting that one should become addicting to the drug after trying it... continued usage should be warned against, but nothing should prevent someone from purchasing it over the counter. If there's a need for it, people will figure it out...
>So yes, it is important to improve all the conditions to do it safely, but I'm afraid that it could "create" dependance that should be avoid in an other way.
There's so many things in the world that people can become addicting to or things that "create" a dependence in a person. Shame we remove gambling? Gaming? Porn? I mean, societies seemed to have tried and failed multiple times with these objects...
>I mean, I don't really care that people try to smoke a joint. But that's a really different problem if they try a fix of heroin imo.
You're right, fixing heroin requires fixing the system as a whole, however legalization and taxation to confront and hopefully solve the issue makes a lot more sense than keeping them entirely illegal and ignoring the problem.
>But I don't want to make myself judge of the devil "it could create new dependance blablabla", I know the pros and the cons,
If one piece of art is created due to someone being high, it's a win. Some people believe drugs enhance their performance (and studies can back that up). If a person wants to burn their candle of life twice as fast, why not let them? Obviously, they'd be responsible for their actions.
> I'm just thinking as a good father,
I've met some pretty terrible fathers out there, good on you for trying to be a good one. Make sure your child doesn't eat a tide pod, and you're doing pretty well compared to some
>I want the best for my children.
Don't you want your child to grow up in a place where criminals are always people who they should be scared of rather than just those who like to take an occasional puff?
>That's all.
Come on now, there's more to you than just being a father =)
Nobody in the right mind would seriously compare bleach addiction to alcohol/drug/tobbaco addction, obviously! 
