I agree with your arguments, but we both know that quite a few fellow conservatives would disagree. I personally don't care what people do for recreation. Having said that, I don't think we should have a free for all either. I think there are many drugs that should be regulated, but I'd rather see a junkie get his fix from a doctor or a med-tech than have him steal and kill to buy street junk. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's a more viable one.
I think there are many drugs that should be regulated, but I'd rather see a junkie get his fix from a doctor or a med-tech than have him steal and kill to buy street junk. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's a more viable one. There is actually a positive correlation between the harshness of drug laws and the percentage of heroin addicts.
Iran has the highest rate of heroin addiction in the world and they've executed around 10,000 heroin traffickers over the last decade or so.
In 1996, Singapore had proportionally slightly more heroin addicts than the US. And Holland has a lower rate of heroin addiction than the US, using late 90's figures for both. These were the latest government figures I could find.
It does not mean that harsh laws cause higher rates of heroin addiction.
It means lenient laws don't necessarily lead to more of it.