I've just cited a policy of drug legalisation that costs the taxpayer 3.6 billion a year.

And you suggested using it on policing, which doesn't solve the problem of hard drug use, just punishes addicts who will then reoffend. Your proposed spending would be higher than it would be under legalisation.

Yes, this is the crux of my argument, the crux of yours too, although I notice you're not keen to phrase it in that way, pro drug types never are.

... I'm not pro drugs. I don't use illegal drugs, never have never will most likely. I'm however realistic and accept that we will NEVER get rid of drugs or stop them existing. Considering legalisation policies are beneficial in almost every way it's the logical conclusion.

Yes, and rape, murder and theft will always exist. But they can be reduced through the proper application of the law.

Completely irrelevant though isn't it, because legalising those things doesn't benefit anyone, whereas in the case of drugs it does.

medical and social issues that would be caused by the unleashing of legal poisons onto the market