No thanks.
When a person initiates force the victim and his or her agent (police or Samaritan) may exercise their highest moral right -- the right of self-defense and physical survival. And that ought to be all that a person confronts another person unless invited to associate with another person. Too many busybodies (basically harmless unless the busybody is one of the parasitical elite) telling other people how to live their lives.
The new paradigm proposes to not live by the popular code of do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Instead, leave people alone to create their lives as they see fit.
Principle One: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Principle Two: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Principle One.
Principle Three: No exceptions shall be allowed for Principle One and Two.
Principle One is first a law. For every instance that a person has force initiated against them or their property there is a loss to that person. Only the person/victim knows the true value of their loss. The law underlying Principle One is as true as physics law.
All a person need be concerned with is whether he or she has been the victim and who violated Principle One. Then prove that to a jury.
Thus the ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claiming to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All jurors will be informed that they have the option of jury nullification. Objective law; The Point Law nullifies agenda law and ego law.
I would bet that all the dangerous anti-social addicts would fall afoul of three strikes laws literally within days in many cases anyway, so the harm-reduction argument for federal drug laws is empty. I would rather have a smaller, less-intrusive federal government and a state government focused on removing dangerous people - whatever makes them dangerous - for a long time.
I think this approach would result in fewer, better-trained, better paid LEO enforcing laws that really make a positive difference and making fewer tragic mistakes. I think fewer people would be in prison, and the ones there would be there for good reasons and for a long time. Now we have a situation where unaccountable and distant authorities can poke their noses into too many aspects of our lives. As you can see on what is a VERY conservative forum, the current situation breeds contempt for LEOs and the law in general by people you would normally expect to be supportive.
We have a CONSTITUTION which clearly and in easy-to-read language (so any average sixth grader can understand it) delineates what Government may do. The list is VERY SHORT. And laws may be enacted ONLY WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS, period. Anything beyond that causes government to trespass into forbidden territory.
And yet, that is precisely the point of a Constitutionally limited Republic. That a principled elite, who do understand the fundamental laws of our land, and why they are the way they are, shall maintain the contract as initially penned. That is the entire point of the bi-cameral college, the separation of powers, the establishment of two legislative bodies, the nix on a federal standing army, and, indeed, most of the "plumbing" sections of the Constitution.