At the very least, that damn fool will cost me money. Under the present system, I'll have to pay his unemployment benefit because he's too stoned to get work, I'll have to pay for his hospital bills when he gets too whacked to realise his heart ought to beat and his lungs take in oxygen. If he's disorderly and all over the place, I'll have to pay for the police to get the idiot off my doorstep.
If I hear Liberatarians first advocating getting rid of unemployment insurance, "free" medical care, and making drug addicts pay for what they do, then I might consider it. But the Libertarian approach is always legalisation first without considering the consequences it would have.
Of course even if those conditions still did exist, I'd have to pay for the police at the very least. And given how the price of drugs would fall right through the floor, consumption would rise. And given that the deep shame of being a drug user from the 19th century no longer exists, all the constraints would be off. Heroin parties after work for everyone would be next. Oh, joy.
Ivan
Way off topic aren't we? :-D Just because someone drinks doesn't mean they are unemployed does it? Being slightly intoxicated in the evening isn't indicative of unemployment is it? Oh yeah, there's a much greater chance that a drunkard will bother getting up to cause a ruckus than someone who has just smoked a joint. Ban alcohol?