Replies

Is regulating certain drugs such as antibiotics for the purpose of general public health OK, and if so why penicilin, but not crack?

Even though this question was not directed at me, I'd like to answer it. I think that the case for regulating antibiotics is much stronger than the case for regulating recreational drugs, as there is a legitimate public health concern in the overuse of antibiotics; specifically, the threat of drug-resistant diseases. By restricting the use of these drugs, the government is protecting you from the threat of contracting a disease that cannot be treated due to another's misuse of them.

In the case of recreational drugs, all or nearly all of the harm associated with their use falls on the user, and usually even they are not hurt. Most of the justification given for regulating recreational drugs is that of protecting people from hurting themselves. I don't see that as a legitimate function of government.

Of course, I do believe that regulating recreational drugs by placing a minimum age on their use is legitimate. That is not what I mean by "regulate".

I find your ideas very logical (in that there is consistency) even where I don't agree with them.

The issue of regulating drugs such as Tylenol (a huge unintentional killer) and antibiotics, but not cocaine, can be consistent. I don't agree with it, but it can be consistent.

Where I think the problem lays for your argument is in justifying your position Constitutionally. The ability to regulate one, but not the other is very difficult to argue, as they are both matters where the government is making a law to protect people from themselves.

In a practical sense, there is also a problem. I would want very high taxes on cocaine to cover its impact on social services. The drug companies would demand as much oversight of cocaine manufacture as you have in Aspirin. Trial lawyers would demand an incorporated producer. The end result would be that "recreational drugs" would still be expensive. Not at all likely to solve the associated crime.

I'm personally and religiously not ready to take a "thin the herd" approach.

All in all, I very much appreciate your candor, and I hope you now trust that I too am trying to be very honest and get to the heart of the issue and to the key areas where we likely disagree.