Both are responsible. The users have created a culture of permissiveness in which experimentation with dangerous and addictive substances is encouraged. However, if there were no producers, then there could be no drug users. Any "war on drugs" requires vigorous action against the culture of drug use and against those who profit from drug addiction. Yes, this includes alcohol and tobacco.

I take my argument back to the old supply-and-demand logic. Without a demand, the supply would be non-existent. If the drug dealers didn't have a clientele, there would be little reason to import illegal drugs, now would there? I place my blame for the proliferation of illegal drugs squarely on the user.

The key word here is "most". If there were no demand, the supply side would be nonexistent.

I say the pusher. But before I jump into the argument let's define "illegitimate drug." Do you mean illegitimate as in misusing prescription painkillers? In that case the pushers are doctors and medicine companies, "legitimately" making millions off of users (that is, people who are hooked). Rich white people get richer from this scenario, so obviously that's not part of the War on Drugs. Moving on. Do you mean illegal, at least in the States? In that case, cannabis, a benign drug, would be included in the group whereas alcohol, a destructive drug, would be excluded. Or perhaps you mean addictive drugs like crack that are frequently involved with violent crimes (umm, again like alcohol). That's what most people think of when saying "drugs is bad, mmkay?" so let's roll with that. Have you ever tried a drug before? (That's rhetorical so you don't really have to answer it.) It's one thing to talk about addicition and another thing to be addicted. It is only relatively recently that alcoholism has been labelled as a mental illness. Some people who don't drink find this strange, but addicts and addicts-in-the-making can see why the label was formed. Your willpower is weakened while your reasoning and justifications for your ways becomes a different animal while addicted to a drug. The War on Drugs exists because we don't want to see other people who are suffering, and I'm not just talking about people who aren't using drugs. Unfortunately, the war has got it all wrong. In closing, I contend that the users, who start out as normal Joe Schmoes trying something for the first time, become slaves to the drug and then become monsters themselves (worst-case scenario of course). And the pushers love it.

Obviously the user. They make the choice to use. Period. Anything to the contrary is liberal weenie smokescreen "I'm not responsible for my actions" bullshit. Even if some pusher tied me down and injected me with something until I became addicted, I still have the power to check in to detox (although in that case it would be the pusher's fault if they actually did restrain and forcibly inject you against your will). Come on people....if a super fine woman dressed ultra provocatively and came on strong to a married man, it is in no way HER fault if hey decides to break the sanctity of his marriage. No difference w/ drugs. Peer and other pressures can be intense, but the bottom line is that the individual who makes the choice is the one that is responsible for it. If someone makes the decision to get fucked up on illicit drugs, they are responsible for said action. Period. "But everyone else was doing it" is never a free pass to break moral or legal obligations without consequence.