I am aware of what you said, and I have responded twice now that what you said was non sequitur. The issue here is whether or not it is consistent and rational to prohibit one drug and not another. There is no functional difference between alcohol and marijuana. Prohibiting one and not the other is inconsistent and irrational. Do you agree or disagree?
How does that relate to our laws prohibiting murder?
Prohibition of murder does not work either, obviously. The only thing that can be done is to make the punishment harsh enough to deter those who would commit it. Would you suggest that we institute capital punishment for people who smoke pot?
Now what? Eliminate those, too?
Irrelevant. There are two parts of my argument for the futility of drug prohibition. They cannot be separated. Murder impinges upon the equal rights of another individual. Therefore, it is a proper function of the state to prohibit it.
I said:
Your answer is not a direct rebuttal of the assertion that it is improper for the state to regulate what we ingest.
You responded:
Correct. My answer was a direct rebuttal to your original assertion that "it is not a proper function of government to regulate what we ingest".
You say "correct," indicating that it was not a direct rebuttal, but then you repeat that it is. Which is it?
Who would you deem appropriate to regulate the public welfare and safety if not the government?
Whether or not I choose to ingest any particular substance for any particular reason, so long as it does not directly impinge on the equal rights of others, does not lie in the domain of the public welfare. Your question is irrelevant.
No, regulating the interstate commerce of immoral or harmful items is a proper and constitutional role of government.
It is a proper and constitutional role of our federal government, and only because it is a subset of the regulation of all interstate commerce. However, we are not talking only about trafficking and we are not talking about only the federal government. The government, both federal and local, prohibits the possession and trafficking of drugs, interstate or intrastate. As well, whether regulation of commerce includes prohibition is arguable.
Do you know of any that can?
Not a single one. Prohibition of anything, by itself, is futile. In the case of the war on drugs, the futility of prohibition is compounded by the government committing resources in an effort to make it appear less so.
No, that's not the issue -- unless you're now creating a new one.
The issue WAS your question: "If we are well aware of the futility of prohibition (because of alcohol), why do we continue to believe in it?
And I responded, "The success or failure of prohibiting one drug has no relationship to the success or failure of prohibiting the other." I don't see how that response is non sequitur. Maybe you can clarify your accusation. Then again, maybe not.
"There is no functional difference between alcohol and marijuana. Prohibiting one and not the other is inconsistent and irrational. Do you agree or disagree?"
Talk about non sequitur! Who's discussing marijuana? The subject is drugs. All drugs. It's a War on Drugs not a War on Marijuana.
Some drugs are legal, some are legal and available by prescription, and some are illegal. Now that may look inconsistent and irrational to you, but that's the system.
"Would you suggest that we institute capital punishment for people who smoke pot?"
Hey, you're the one who thinks drug use should be zero in order to justify prohibiting it. So you tell me. We may need to go further than that and do summary executions in the street to accomplish your goal.
"Murder impinges upon the equal rights of another individual. Therefore, it is a proper function of the state to prohibit it."
Meaning futile laws that prohibit activity that harms others are perfectly acceptable to you, but futile laws that prohibit activity that doesn't harm others must be repealed. And that makes sense to you?
"You say "correct," indicating that it was not a direct rebuttal, but then you repeat that it is. Which is it?"
You made two different assertions;
A) "it is not a proper function of government to regulate what we ingest" (your original assertion).
B) "it is improper for the state to regulate what we ingest" (your second assertion).
I responded to, and thoroughly refuted, "A".
"Whether or not I choose to ingest any particular substance for any particular reason"
We have no laws against ingesting drugs, so feel free to ingest to your heart's content. Possessing, selling, transporting, and manufacturing, yes. Doing any of those has a substantial effect on Congress' interstate regulatory efforts -- per the U.S. Supreme Court. That would affect the public welfare.
"so long as it does not directly impinge on the equal rights of others"
Whoa! Since when are our laws supposed to be limited to activity that impinges on the equal rights of others? Who says?
"whether regulation of commerce includes prohibition is arguable"
Thomas Jefferson used the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" to prohibit trade with Europe in 1807 (Jefferson's Embargo). A few years earlier, he used the power to "regulate commerce with the Indian tribes" to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indians.
Interesting to note that his Secretary of State at the time was James Madison, the man who wrote the Commerce Clause. You would think that he would have said something like, "Uh, Tom. When I wrote 'to regulate commerce' I didn't mean that you could prohibit commerce".
Since we have no record of him saying that, I'm just going to assume that "to regulate" includes "to prohibit". As did the U.S. Supreme Court in a number of cases.