Keeping drugs illegal has not eliminated those problems.
Therefore, make them legal (and far more prevalent) and the problems may go away.
That's not my argument. Re-read what I wrote (above, in bold).
So you’ve acknowledged that since the recreational use of drugs made popular and socially acceptable by your ideological forebears (the 1960’s radically self-centered) the result has been overall damage to those individuals unfortunate enough to have been ruined by drugs (Google “meth addiction”) and to society on the whole.
Yet you want to legalize drugs and thereby guarantee that recreational drug usage will become more prevalent, which will result in even greater harm to individuals and society (which impacts those individuals who do not use drugs).
You also stated that there should be no restrictions on which drugs are illegal and when I quoted Ron Paul who made the same statement, you implicitly agreed.
So what other human behaviors should not be restricted?
Should the state sanction euthanasia for any reason whatsoever?
And, if so, why not have state-sanctioned Russian Roulette so that those people who decide to off themselves can do so in a manner that enables state-sanctioned gambling?
It would be like the new televised poker games that you, just with people who were going to commit suicide or euthanasia blowing their brains out.
“That’s absurd!”
Yes, it is. I am using the absurd to point out the absurd. And my argument to you is the same argument I use for those who support same-sex marriage.
Those who support same-sex marriage say that restricting marriage to those of opposite sexes is unfair and that people of the same sex should be allowed to marry. They also argue that it is a form of discrimination and therefore a violation of the US Constitution. I argue that it is not a violation of the USC but that it is the will of the people carried out through legislation. I further argue that, if it were, then it would be unconstitutional to legislate against any marriage. Brothers could marry brothers. Sisters could marry sisters. Fathers could marry sons, and mothers could marry daughters. And, of course, why not polygamy?
I ask if they support all of this and they say no of course not, only homosexual couples. That is where they lose the argument, because they contradict themselves. They do not oppose setting the rules. They only oppose those rules when others set them and they don’t like them. They believe in restrictions of some sort, even they won’t acknowledge it.
You and the rest of the liberaltarians (not libertairans, liberaltarians) also defeat your own argument for the same reason.
I have posited many scenarios of “what else should not be restricted” and you gave no logical legitimate response, because you know, if you have any conservatism in you whatsoever, that you do not agree with completely unrestricted behavior. What this means is that you acknowledge and believe you benefit from traditional Judeo-Christian morality and justice in many aspects of your life, and that you do not want those abandoned because you know the societal fallout from completely lifting all morality and green-flagging unfettered individual behavior would reduce America to a hellhole. If you dislike nannies, then I’d have to assume that you also understand that if America reached such a state of degradation and decay, you are fully aware that the iron fist of the state would smash down hard on individual liberty to ‘fix’ that societal problem and our liberties would be gone forever. This, as I stated earlier, is why constitutional American patriots who support the Founding Fathers believe in the need for voluntary restraint of individual behavior so that liberty will not become license, which is a license inevitably revoked by the State.
You know that you do not want brothels and crack houses operating legally next door do you. You do not want people coming in to your office on meth and heroin. You do not want pornography and sex toys on every channel and on the checkout stand at every store where you and your family will not be able to avoid it. I find it hard that you want to walk with your family past drug addicts slouched against the walls of 1 out of 2 blocks that you walk by or that you want children in school to have even easier access to those drugs that will destroy them and break the hearts of their families. You do believe in restrictions, just your own set of restrictions that will enable you to indulge in a behavior that you want to without fear of prosecution. And then you admit that lifting the selective set of restrictions that you oppose will harm individuals and society, yet you still say they should be lifted.
As I said at the beginning, this liberaltarian argument is nothing more than the self-indulgence the 1960’s radicals imposed upon us for their own decadent pleasure, at the expense of our national culture. Most probably were not aware that that breakdown of our culture was planned and implemented by communists and socialists with the express goal of destroying our nation and creating a vacuum of morality, history, ideology, and prosperity...a vacuum that they planned to fill with the Iron Fist of the State.