Replies

"The same could certainly be said of alcohol. Would you bring back prohibition? "

While I realize that this is the classic libertarian "gotcha" question, I will answer by saying "no", I would not bring back prohibition.

It is easier to build a dam while the river is still but a stream. Alcohol has been around for centuries and a very small percentage of drinkers are actually alcoholics; alcohol use is readily detectable, whereas drugs can be concealed and more secretly used.

I am not condoning one over the other, but with the laws and controls in place for alcohol it is easier to track (yes, and tax) than drugs. The sale of it - and who it is sold to - can be more easily controlled.

Legalize drugs and most of our future citizens will be be stoned from sunrise to sunset. The stuff has lasting effects, and is highly addictive. The casual drug users who become addicts is far more prevalent that casual drinkers who become alcholics.

Alcohol and drugs are kindred in nature, but in practice are as drifferent as day and night.

But, I know libertarians want their drugs and will foist any argument to keep them, so what I am saying to you is a moot point, I suppose. But saying that drugs are ok because alcohol is "ok" is like a kid saying, "Bawwwww, Johnny got a new bike, why can't I have one too....bawwwww.". It's the classic liberal "I want" syndrome backed by flimsy facts and bratty excuses. .

In this life, we usually argue vehemently and come down on the side of our wants and desires, so if anyone wants to be a druggie, then be one...but it shouldn't be a plank in a political party.

Druggies and alkies are all weak people, who need a crutch to handle reallity. But my take is, if you can't handle reality while you're sober or straight, you sure as hell can't handle it while stoned....and when you sober up, guess what...reality is still there...patiently waiting on the addicts to grow up.

I will grant you that at the margin legalization of drugs will result in more people using drugs. On the other hand, it would eliminate the wasteful "war on drugs" with all its attendant costs. That's a tradeoff I'm willing to accept. If someone is such a loser that they want to ruin their life using recreational drugs, that's their business and not mine, and they're likely to do so regardless of the law in any case.

I don't care what you do as long as I don't pay for it.