Well you need to understand the desperation, my FRiend - the desperation that drives ordinary, freedom-loving people to go so far as to empower their government to inaugurate a “war” on drugs. Desperate people do foolish things, like granting power to those who will abuse it.
Now ask yourself, “why on earth are they so desperate?” Isn’t it because we know what happens to our kids, our parents, our neighbors when they become addicts? Do we want that sort of effect becoming ever more commonplace, rotting our communities? our states? our country?
Today we have “dry” counties and “wet” counties. Isn’t it in our purview to determine for ourselves what sort of community we’ll have? Of course we should begin with a presumption of liberty. But that doesn’t mean liberty is a trump card for the settling of every question.
LF, I've been following your comments on this thread and I'm impressed with the thoughtfulness and civility you've demonstrated. I'm especially glad to see a non-libertarian embrace the idea of a presumption of liberty. I hope you don't mind if I join the party a little late, so to speak.
You seem to want to strike a balance between protecting the liberty of individuals and promoting the welfare of the community. How well do you think the following compromise would meet your ideals?
I. Communities are allowed to prohibit private use of a drug only if:
a). the drug has a substantial likelihood to cause the user to immediately violate the rights of others (e.g. a drug that drives one into a berserker frenzy), or
b). the drug has such addictive power and is so expensive (even when legal) that an addict could not reasonably expect to support his habit without violating the rights of others (e.g. stealing televisions or mugging).
II. In addition, communities would be free to:
a). regulate public intoxication or public consumption of any drug, and
b). require a clean drug test before providing any social services.
To me, this seems like a compromise that would be acceptable to both libertarians and the vast bulk of conservatives. I believe most libertarians would accept this approach because it is rooted in protecting others from an almost certain violation of their rights...one of the few (or perhaps only) legitimate roles of government recognized by libertarians. It's really not that different from prohibiting people from firing a gun into a crowd.
I think conservatives would find this acceptable as well since it addresses their primary concern with drug use, which is the danger posed by having desperate addicts running around in the streets. It also prevents having to pay for lazy drug users or having one's children exposed to drug use while in public.
Other than that, if someone chooses to waste away their time and their money getting high in private, what business is it of the community? I suppose one could argue for even more stringent restrictions on the grounds that drug users are unproductive, or distasteful, or don't vote the way we like. But I don't think we want to empower governments - even local governments - to force us into becoming more productive, or more aesthetically pleasing, or heaven forbid, to vote the way the majority wants us to vote.
Do you think my approach would be an acceptable compromise between preserving liberty and protecting the community?