I'm saying that it will have no overall effect on the gangs, not the market. They'll simply focus on the remaining illegal drugs and would soon make up the difference.
"You've alluded to this before; it's the idea that what is right is exactly in accord with what's legal."
Geez Louise. You're all over the place. Make up your mind already. Now it's about what is "right" versus what is "legal"?
You asked, "So if "people" decide that they want to lay punitive, punishing taxes on red meat ... that's just fine with you". I responded by saying that if the action is constitutional, yes.
I don't like taxes on red meat. I'd rather red meat weren't taxed. If it came to a vote, I'd vote against it. So, in that sense, it's not "fine" with me.
But if the majority, expressing their will through their elected representatives, decided to pass a law taxing meat, I don't have a problem with that constitutionally, no.
"The majority does not have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do"
Sure they do. The bulk of my property tax goes towards education. I don't have children. You're saying that because I'm a free man I shouldn't have to pay these taxes? Not because I'm greedy or selfish or self-centered or an individualist -- it's because I'm a FREE MAN. Well, it sounds better anyways.
Now, if we didn't have this big centralized government you're so fond of (you DO support the notion that the BOR does, or should, apply to the states, correct?), then the education decision would be made by each state and maybe I could find a state that exempts people like me.
"I don't believe that anything which legally can be done should be done... nor do I believe that if something is constitutional, it necessarily infringes no rights."
I agree.
"According to you, a person who uses marijuana every month or so is not a marijuana user."
Huh?
Look. I'm tired of repeating myself. That statement makes no sense whatsoever, and I never said it. Stop saying "according to you ...". It's not according to me.
"I asked you before: how small must a minority get before it loses its rights?"
Nobody "loses" rights. That implies that someone "gave" them the rights to begin with or that you'll "get them back" from someone.
Your natural rights are protected by society. Or not. In our society, a federated republic, legislators (reflecting the will of the people) decide which rights will be protected and to what extent.
Plus, it has nothing to do with the size of the minority -- the disabled are a small minority, yet they were extended numerous rights that even I don't have.
"Absent that, though, can you think of any reason why it should be more expensive than, say, corn?"
Gosh. Why is lettuce more expensive than corn? Why is asparagus more expensive than corn? What kind of qiuestion is that?
Marijuana will be expensive mainly because 94% of the people don't want it to be cheap. Regulatory requirements will drive up the production cost. Liabilty issues will drive up the cost (gee, marijuana causes cancer -- let's sue). Licensing.
Then there's taxes. Federal, state, county, city ... everyone will want a piece of this new revenue source.
"But it wouldn't happen... because as soon as the black market becomes cheaper than the free market, the free market evaporates and tax revenues drop to zero."
It's happening with cigarettes today. And the the government's response is very telling -- they're not lowering taxes (actually they're increasing them to make up the revenue shortfall). They're going after the tax avoiders. The smugglers, internet sales, Indian store sales, etc. Starting to look like the WOD.
"Not if it were done by a state, it wouldn't be."
A mass confiscation of guns would be unconstitutional, no matter who does it. The courts have already addressed that. It a ridiculous hypothetical.
"but even so, just because something isn't explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it isn't a right."
I agree. Likewise, just because something is a right doesn't mean the rest of us must protect it.
"And in this case it's a very fundamental right, the right to own and control your own body..."
It happens to have an effect on the rest of society. And our right to live how we want to live, our right to raise children in an environment we desire, trumps your right to engage in selfish, immoral hedonistic behavior.
How is it that your right should trump ours? Why must we protect your right to engage in this self centered activity?
(I don't mean you, personally.)
"Have you ever even attempted to justify your War on Drugs in terms of the benefits it provides for the costs?"
No, I haven't. I haven't done it for prostitution or porn or gambling, either.
Actually, I ask myself what's to be gained by legalizing marijuana (or all drugs). I haven't yet come up with (or heard) a good answer. Most of the benefits gained by legalizing marijuana can be gained by simply decriminalizing it.
Now, on to substance (and I hope you don't mind if I skip around a little bit):
Geez Louise. You're all over the place.
This is true, so let me try to organize my arguments a bit.
There are many good arguments against the War on Drugs, but they all tend to fall into one of two broader classes: the ethical arguments and the practical arguments. I've been guilty of conflating them, so let me lay them out individually.
The ethical argument is based on rights: people have the freedom to do as they wish (other than harming nonconsenting others), and any law that abridges this freedom is a violation of a fundamental human right. As far as I'm concerned, there is one and only one true human right. We talk about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of religion, right to life, right to liberty, right to pursue happiness, but all of these are merely specializations of the single true right: the right to be left alone. The right not to have other people (singly or in groups) exert force or commit fraud against you without your consent, so long as you do not initiate force or fraud against them. The fundamental axiom of a free society is Mind your own business!.
Rights are not subject to majority vote. Government, in the form of a dictator, a monarch, or a republican legislature, may choose to abridge certain rights, but that doesn't make it ethical. It is not right for a group to do that which it wouldn't be right for members of that group to do as individuals. Just as it would be wrong for you to march into a tavern and force the proprietor to shut down at the point of a shotgun, it's just as wrong for a whole group of people (perhaps constituting a majority) to use force to shut down that same tavern. Or that opium den. Might does not make right, and majorities are not freed from their ethical obligations.
It happens to have an effect on the rest of society.
Everything has an effect on the rest of society. That doesn't give society the moral authority to interfere.
And our right to live how we want to live, our right to raise children in an environment we desire, trumps your right to engage in selfish, immoral hedonistic behavior.
You have the right to live how you want to live, but not to tell other people how to live. As for raising your children in an environment you desire... you certainly don't have that right. Would you say that if a majority wanted to raise their children in an environment in which Christianity (or Islam, or Discordianism) were the state religion, it would be proper for them to make it so? If people wanted to raise their children in an environment in which slaves cared for their needs, would they have that right?
Why must we protect your right to engage in this self centered activity?
I'm not asking you to protect my right, I'm asking you not to infringe it. Actually, "asking" is too mild a word; I'm telling you that your infringement of the rights of others is an abhorrent violation.
(I don't mean you, personally.)
I know you don't, and thanks for saying so. Too often, in these kinds of debates, the pro-prohibition side demands to know whether I myself am a drug user, as if that sort of ad hominem proves anything. (If it did prove something, I'd wonder why the trusting the opinions of abstainers from drugs on drug use makes any more sense than, say, trusting the opinions of virgins on sex... but it doesn't.)
I've got more to say but I have to get to work for now... will write more tonight.