Considering that I have been speaking about nonviolent crimes the entire course of this discussion, I'm glad you have finally picked up on it. Tenth time is a charm, I suppose.
We'll see how you feel about adding theft to the list after your house and car get torn apart a few times.
Theft harms others objectively, and I support keeping it illegal. But, I have a higher bar for LWOP or death for those who commit such crimes (1) than you do, and (2) compared to those who rape, murder, etc., for which I have much less patience.
1. You either believe that there is no connection between drug use and crime (which is ignoring the plain facts), or you believe that any connection, regardless of whether its even 100%, simply doesn't matter.
You either believe that there is no connection between drug prohibition and crime (which is ignoring the plain facts), or you believe that any connection, regardless of whether its even 100%, simply doesn't matter.
To make a traffic law analogy, this would result in having no speed limits anywhere, because potential energy never killed anyone.
Bad analogy. (First, it's kinetic energy, not potential.) Reckless driving places others directly in jeopardy, whereas someone smoking a joint or snorting meth does not. But, like a KKK bigot or a Million Mom Marcher, you can't distinguish peaceable drug use (being black, gun ownership) from ancillary criminal activity, e.g. gangs.
2. You continually compare drug use to alcohol consumption as a means of downplaying it. I don't consider this any more valid than comparing scotch to coffee. Apples and oranges.
This country has experimented with alcohol prohibition, just as it now does do with drug prohibition. The same things said about drugs today have been said about alcohol: it ruins lives, it leads to hopelessness, it addicts most who try it, it's immoral and corrupts those who try it, it's poison, it kills people through disease, etc. Same old same old. I don't compare alcohol to drugs, except to say that alcohol kills ~50,000/year (which is far more than all illegal drugs put together) but rather I compare Prohibition to the drug war.
3. You believe the everything goes society you prescribe would be freer. From historical precedent, I think it would implode with devastating results for personal liberties in a fairly short period.
Cocaine, heroin, pot - all were legal for 100 years or more in this country from its founding to ~1906. What implosion happened during this time? You're the one citing historical precedent. Please cite it.
How did abundant, legal, and priced right opium work out for the Chinese? Don't blame the British, they weren't forcing anyone to use it.
Maybe not "forcing" but it was in their interest for there to be a lot of addicts, so they did what they could to encourage use. Comparing my position to that is dishonest, to say the least.
Its not a bad analogy just because it makes your argument look bad. A speeding car is potential energy, in reference to a crash, which is what is referenced. The analogy is perfect because to you there is nothing wrong in the chain of events until the final step. Thus, how can you say that someone that is speeding is reckless? They haven't caused an accident yet have they? You just refuse to apply the same logic to drug use. Its exactly the same thing.
But you don't compare alcohol to drugs?! Do you read your own posts?
Other things that were legal for hundreds of years before 1906.
-Going 150 mph on the interstate.
-Software piracy.
-Owning a machinegun without a permit.
-Flying without a license.
Notice a connection here? News flash, laws prohibiting harmful behavior don't usually exist before it becomes a problem for society. Notice that we no laws restricting spacecraft? You have a real problem with cause and effect.
Its exactly the same to say the least. They did nothing but sell a product, which is what you are advocating here. Are we to believe that your "Crack-R-Us" outlets won't want customers? Again, making your argument look bad isn't the qualifier for dishonesty.
Smugglers/dealers primarily kill other smugglers/dealers, users primarily kill or steal from the innocent. You propose solving the first and ignoring the latter. So I do see a connection, but your solution solves the problem for the bad guys, while greatly increasing for the innocent.
FYI, the reason I'm against legal prostitution isn't based on the morality of prostitution. In my younger days I thought legal prostitution was a great idea, because I bought into the victimless crime nonsense.
As I got older, I realized that the vast majority of "voluntary prostitution" is made up of women with very serious psychological damage from sexual abuse as minors.
I'm also against legal Russian roulette tournaments based on similar assumptions of the participants mental health.