If I quit my job to pursue my dream of being a professional competitive surfer, that affects many people around me ... but it's none of the government's business. The test for legitimacy of government compulsion is not "effect" but the much narrower "violation of rights" - which drug sale and use are, in and of themselves, not.
legalization (without overtaxation or overregulation) will lower the price of a fix and thus the crime needed to pay for it.
Legalization will undoubtedly result in increase in abuse, crime
So you claim - with no rebuttal for my point above. Advantage, me.
Illegal cigarettes are a factor only in those liberal cities that tax them astronomically; if legal-pot states don't excessively tax or restrict market entry, illegal pot will eventually be about as big as illegal alcohol.
Illegal cigarettes are not really a suitable case study for drugs which alter minds.
My economic argument applies to any desired product, mind-altering or not. And alcohol is a drug which alters minds - yet is not sold illegally (to any significant extent) because it's available legally.
I would be for making alcohol illegal
We tried that already and found it did more harm than good: Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure.
the vast majority of those who do violent crime have some drug/alcohol in their blood system.
The vast majority of those who have some drug/alcohol in their blood system don't do violent crime.
The vast majority of those who do crime do have drugs or alcohol in their system...
You do, I hope, understand that your statement does not contradict mine?
I don’t know HTML and not interested in learning so that is why I answer the way I do...besides it would be too cumbersome anyway.
First fact of life...man is flawed, man’s reasoning is ultimately flawed. Your example of you taking up surfing is perfect for that. If you injure someone with your surfboard or, if becoming a surfer causes you to hurt others you might have some kind of reasoning to match the one I made regarding addiction. Mood altering drugs, including alcohol changes us...it does affect others directly. It is not like anything you can use an analogy to compare...I would agree most people do not abuse enough to cause others harm...but, the numbers of those who do...mostly under the radar...do great harm. We haven’t even broached the deaths and injuries by impaired driving...
I am not sure your legalization without over taxation and over regulation holds true. Of course it depends upon those factors somewhat...but that isn’t the whole denominator either. Other supply and demand factors come into play. Your assumption that inexpensive drugs are a crime limiting tactic are also assumptions which I think can hardly be applied with confidence. As I keep explaining drug and alcohol use changes our minds...makes us more likely to do harm intentionally or unintentionally. One can be a one time user/drinker and do great harm. Habitual use guarantees great harm to others. To ignore that is to not understand the problem. My claim on this is truth...you can research it yourself and try to disprove it if you like. It is so obvious that there is not a need to provide further data.
Your “economic” argument is not a valid economic argument because you make false assumptions in your argument. Libertarians are nearly always thinking they are economic experts...but rarely are. I actually studied economics in college...minored in it. But have used sound economic analysis throughout my career to enjoy a fair amount of success.
But, having said that...a deeper truth needs to be realized to bring one to understand that economics is a study of value...but not a determinant in and of itself of value. There are other considerations to value that are relevant. Those are moral laws. Specifically God’s moral laws. When we break those we literally break the weave as created and suffer. Those around us suffer from our lack of moral consideration. Drugs and alcohol thus end up hurting others by its intrinsic changing of the minds of the users making the proclivity to do harm to others higher. This is getting a bit philosophical/theological, but any deep truth has to. One cannot truly find truth simply quantitatively or “scientifically” with quantifiable analysis. That is why, when we forget or ignore God’s morality we as men ultimately fail in our reasoning to commit great harm. A great example are the Nazi’s who were very scientifically oriented in their notions of superior race. The immorality of killing millions of Jews were justified via their Darwinian/Nietzsche basis. Libertarians in their exclusive “economic” reasoning without moral consideration make the same mistake.
Abortion is a great example of that...under Libertarian thought abortion is a decision best made by the mother...completely ignoring the baby’s God given right to life. Abortion has been worse than the Nazi’s holocaust and is the most barbaric act in human history.
I already explained your flawed economic thinking comparing other things (non mind affecting) to drug addiction...
We did not have our heart into it...and I would like to see us do it by changing the hearts and minds (educating) people of the beauty of sobriety. However, I am not convinced that more harm would be done through prohibition if there was government cooperation at local levels, which there was not. There was corruption...
My statement that most who do criminal acts are either under the affects of drugs and/or alcohol or are regular users whose minds have been altered by it.
I think the difference mainly in our thinking is that you do not consider the mind altering affects of drugs and alcohol nor really care that others are harmed because of that. I have personal experience and thus understand it more clearly probably. To argue that ignoring the detrimental affects of drugs and alcohol are appropriate is to ignore the understanding of the argument.