Replies

You seem to be intentionally misconstruing my position.

I am not saying that I think certain drugs should be kept illegal because they're "bad for people". I'm saying they should be kept illegal because they're chemically addictive, and therefore give the supplier an unfair advantage over the consumer.

Take heroin, for example. I don't give a damn about the user's weakened heart, taxed immune system or loss of appetite. I do not presume to tell people, or force people, to not use heroin because its side-effects could kill them. I am NOT playing parent. I challenge you to find in my posts anywhere where I believe that people should be forced to avoid a drug out of concern for their well-being.

What I DO care about, however, is the fact that the supplier of heroin has the power to engage the consumer in a business transaction from which the user cannot escape without extreme physical repercusions. Free market economics work only because the producer and the consumer can each choose to enter into a transaction that each perceives as beneficial. A transaction that's entered into because the user feels like they're on the verge of death is not one that is made through reasonable choice.

I do NOT believe activities should be made illegal based on their risk to the practitioner. I'm not saying we should outlaw bungee jumping, or Russian roulette. But neither bungee jumping nor Russian roulette enact chemical changes on the brain that bind the participant to a constant need to expend financial resources. I believe in the continued illegality of certain highly addictive drugs for the same reason that I support the illegality of extortion, bribery, blackmail, etc.; not because I want to parent people, but because I believe in the integrity of the free market.

You seem to be intentionally misconstruing my position.

No, you seem to be dodging the questions I pose. You claim not to be parental, but I assert once again that deciding arbitrarily what is addictive and therefore to be prohibited is parental in attitude. You may couch it in "breakdown of the free market" rhetoric (a favorite rhetorical trick of liberals trying to get the government to do what they want, by the way), but using such terminology does not invalidate the argument that the attitude is parental. You claim the ability to decide for others what actions they should or should not take based on your opinions of the addictiveness of the substances in question.

Plus the fact that, according to some studies, nicotine is at least as addictive as cocaine and heroin, so to be consistent in your position you should be calling for prohibition of cigarettes. Yet, you dodged the first attempt I made to compare, very closely, the effects of tobacco to those of other addictive drugs.

You have also dodged every attempt to confront the issue of costs vs. benefits of prohibition. Even presuming you are correct that some substances are so addictive that they invalidate the free market (I don't agree, but let's stipulate it for the moment), that still does not answer the question of what to do about the fact that the "cure is worse that the disease". That is, the negative effects of the prohibition of drugs, plus the externalities of some of those effects upon innocents, look to be far worse than the effects of drug legalization, in which (1) most of the externalities vanish so that consequences are restricted to those who choose to take a chance on becoming addicted, and (2) the costs of the drug war in money, lives, lost freedom, etc. are avoided.

So, I'll make the questions blunt. If you believe addictiveness means substances should be illegal, then why don't you call for the prohibition of tobacco because of its addictiveness? Do you believe the prohibition of drugs is worth the horrendous costs it imposes on society?

Finally, I want to address one outrageous assertion:

"What I DO care about, however, is the fact that the supplier of heroin has the power to engage the consumer in a business transaction from which the user cannot escape without extreme physical repercusions."

The supplier virtually never uses force to engage the consumer. Therefore the consumer easily has the power to avoid the initial transaction with no physical repercussions whatsoever. The consumer must choose to begin using the drugs. It may be an extremely unwise choice, and they may later regret it (as many smokers I know do), but it is still their choice. There's no force involved in getting that ball rolling.