How about a form of heroin that doesn't make people end up in methadone clinics? Or a form of crack that doesn't cause a psychotropic cascade? Or how about simply a form of alcohol that doesn't lead to alcoholism, or a form of tobacco that people don't need patches in order to give up?
I'm all about free will. Yes, a person has to choose to take that first hit of crack, and yes, if they get addicted on the first shot, that's something they walked right into. That's why I strongly believe that early and extensive education on the effects of drugs has been one of the major benefits of the WoD. It's a form of consumer awareness.
If they're already addicted, then they can choose to endure withdrawal rather than buy another hit. However, would a reasonable person make such a choice? Once you're addicted, another hit becomes a biological need, like air or food. Does "free will" absolve you of the need to eat or breathe?
Now, some products have less addictive properties than others. Nicotine, for example, is more addictive than pot, which is why I believe that it's hypocritical to keep pot illegal. There's evidence to suggest that chocolate has addictive properties; however, its level of addictivity is low enough not to cause consumers to fall into a trap after a single purchase.
Crack, however, does implement such a trap. Taking crack exactly once is likely to cause a person to be unable to live without it. The person has to endure severe physical punishment if they try to avoid purchasing the product. That's no different than extortion, and it does not fall under the scope of free market economics; you're not "free" to make a choice to go without crack if you're going to end up in agony by refusing a sale.
Look... If I gave you, say, syphillis, and then charged you an arm and a leg for antibiotics, I would have earned my profits off of you illegally, immorally, and through imposition on your free will. Likewise, if, by giving you a sampler of crack and tricking you into taking it, I give you a medical condition, an addiction, wherein you have to continue to purchase crack for reasons of continuation of your life and health, whether or not you have free will ultimately has nothing to do with whether or not I've acted ethically.
How about a form of heroin that doesn't make people end up in methadone clinics? Or a form of crack that doesn't cause a psychotropic cascade? Or how about simply a form of alcohol that doesn't lead to alcoholism, or a form of tobacco that people don't need patches in order to give up?
Well, I'd say you'll be waiting a long time for all that...
I genuinely don't get your position. Utopia is not an option. We have what we have, so that's what we must work with. No one denies that drugs (and alcohol, and tobacco) have bad effects. The question is what's worse - (1) a failed ludicrous drug war, which has nasty side affects for everyone in the country, and doesn't accomplish the purpose to boot, or (2) allowing people to choose bad behaviours and suffer the consequences.
You seem to be prepared to take the first option without ever seriously examining just how bad the second is, and whether it's worse than the first. All because you've decided, with genuine parental-sounding concern, that you know how people ought to live their lives. Problem is, that exact same rationale applies to everything from snow-skiing to eating fatty foods.
Of course, you have your own mental model of this "spectrum" of bad things. Some are so bad in your mind you'll do anything to stop them. Others like marijuana are relatively benign, again in your mind, so that you'll give them some level of acceptance. But who are you to decide for the whole world? Why not that activist group that wants to ban fatty foods? Or the PETA guys who believe it's immoral to eat meat. Do you not consider it arrogant to decide what's right for the rest of the world?
I think smoking, drinking to excess, using cocaine, heroin, and pot are all silly, destructive habits. But I know smokers who lived to ninety, people who used cocaine recreationally for years and then put it behind them (such folks do exist!), and of course many who consume alcohol or pot most of their lives with neglible ill effects. So I don't presume to judge for the rest of the world. I'm disappointed that you think you should be able to do just that.