"Regarding people resorting to prostitution/theft/other crime to support their habits, don't you think this would be greatly reduced if they didn't have to pay inflated black-market prices? The incentive for dealers is money. Why buy a product on the street when it can be purchased in a store (generally speaking)? If it's at a huge discount, fantastic! Let these drug-addled bums buy if for pennies on the dollar so they don't break into my house and get shot trying to steal my possessions! Better yet, they don't stab me or kill someone I care about trying to get the money to pay for another day. Have them go to a drug store (not a general type store) where there are armed guards all over the place!"
How much money can a crack addict or a heroin addict make?
The answer is none. They can't hold jobs. So no matter how cheap legalized drugs become, they will still be too expensive for those who are addicted to them.
So you will either have more crime (because of increased addiction) or you will have the gubmint giving out heroin like candy to anyone who wants it. (Which is happening in Europe.)
All the libertarians who claim to be for smaller government should love paying for drugs for addicts -- plus their upkeep for the rest of their lives.
Good thinking there! George Soros is very proud of you!
Oh, so there's no difference between the actions of a junkie who has to come up with $75/day compared to $15/day? If some bum can panhandle enough money to get drunk every day, why not for heroin produced by pharmaceutical companies and purchased in locations with armed guards and medical practitioners?
So you will either have more crime (because of increased addiction) or you will have the gubmint giving out heroin like candy to anyone who wants it. (Which is happening in Europe.)
All the libertarians who claim to be for smaller government should love paying for drugs for addicts -- plus their upkeep for the rest of their lives.
More crime to pay for a cheaper product? If you acknowledge that they commit crime to pay for the product, you should recognize that they would have to commit less crime (possibly just panhandle or collect cans) to supply their current habits! If these habits increase, that percentage is still much smaller than what it would have been at the previous artificially-inflated price.
More crime by people who can no longer afford to be a drug-dealer making money selling to junkies on the street? More gang violence committed by drug-dealing punks who don't have the drug-supplied money to go around shooting at each other? For one thing, you have people selling parts of plants for more than an ounce of gold. Does that make any sense? If it were artichokes do you think they'd be worth it? Of course not.
The only reason for this is the economic conditions of the black market, which is set up by the existing drug laws. Surely you see the connection between the black market and the inflated prices of things sold in it?
Libertarians for smaller government? Sure! How about a smaller bureaucracy that doesn't spend $40 Billion dollars every year? How about the need for less government by the reduction in violent crime over product trafficking/selling?
Why don't you see people selling six-packs on the street for $45? Unless you mind, as you said,"paying for addicts--plus their upkeep for the rest of their lives" then you'd better get off your butt and help ban alcohol! What? That's different? That's not the case?
"Good thinking there!" Al Capone is very proud of you!
I doubt that libertarians would ever accept paying for drugs for addicts no more than they accept the current socialistic welfare system. To them, individual freedom means you pay your own way and do not rely on govt for food and shelter nor drugs. IOWs individual freedom requires you to be responsible for your own dang self. And that includes a drug habit, be it prescription or illicit.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, I am not convinced that libertarians are for illicit drugs, seems to me they are just not against them. Moreover, they are not against them because they believe in individual responsibility and individual freedom. And that means the liberty to do drugs if that is what one wants to do. Still, this does not make them "dopers" as some like to refer to them.
Surely there are some "dopers" in their midst just as there are in all political parties. Sadly, it's mostly only the libertarians who are speaking out against this failed war on drugs, and the enormous cost to taxpayers, as well as our individual freedoms that have been sacrificed in this effort. This 92 year old lady is a prime example of the failure and the horrors associated with it. There are thousands more such stories like this one.
The next time anyone refers to the libertarians as a bunch of "dopers," consider this, just because some gays in the GOP have been exposed, do you think we should all now be referring to the GOP as the "Gay Ole Party?" I don't think so. Nor do I believe it correct to refer to libertarians as "dopers" when they are merely arguing for individual freedom and the responsibilities that come with it.
PS So you know, George Soros is a democrat, not a libertarian.