purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Because I, unlike you, believe that I should have control over my own body; hypothetically, if I was to take drugs, I wouldn't be hurting anybody or causing harm; it can be a victimless crime committed by a private criminal.
I would agree with you accept that when addicts run out of money and can't hold a job they resort to theft. Also many families rely for their livelihood on those people who are starting to take drugs so I don't think it's possible to look at it as a victimless crime. Also those who are addicted to drugs demand money from taxpayers for treatment since they can't pay anything for themselves when they are far gone. Individuals have responsibilities.
Even if you think that all drugs must be eradicated, surely the "war on drugs" is the wrong way to go about it, it consolidates power with the worst elements of the drug trade, gives the government carte blanche to abuse citizens rights (no-knock warrants that end up killing old ladies because they have the wrong address), and harming users (no safe-injecting rooms etc).
Errors in policing is not a good enough excuse for me to stop the war on drugs anymore than arresting the wrong person should be a reason to eliminate the justice system. Errors on policing is a matter for lawyers and lawsuits.
Unless your goal is to militarise the police, declare war on the public and hurt a lot of people you shouldn't be supporting the war on drugs. If you want minimal statism then supply your junkies with clean drugs, hand them $20,000 a year in welfare, and leave them to either kill themselves or get functional; it would be a lesser evil and it would reduce some of the horrible consequences of the black market.
You may have some points on the cost but I have to look at the pros and cons to drug legalization in the Netherlands before I make up my mind. Many libertarians argue what you do. My current opinion is that legalizing drugs will make them cheaper and more people will start. If the government costs are overall less by cancelling the war on drugs and less people start taking in the first place then I would agree. I haven't come upon evidence that convincing yet.
Its the very idea that gay rights, or cognitive liberty, are things which you get to veto that I find repellent. I have no right to use state force to stop people believing in God, nor would I want to; you, however, advocate the same type of violent action, only against people who use drugs which aren't alcohol, nicotine, caffeine and painkillers.
I would like to ban the shit out of nicotine, but alcohol and caffeine can be injested safely and some studies say moderate red wine drinking is healthy. Painkillers are prevented from being used unless prescribed by a doctor. If Pot is prescribed from a doctor then so be it. Though I think smoking pot is bad for your lungs so they should find a way to make it into a pill format.
When it comes to abortion I have problems with the fact that abortion methods can lead to lots of pain for fetuses that haved more developed nerve cells. I also don't like post-birth abortions. That's like aborting a life after it's developed into a baby. I think that life is precious and abortions should be done in extreme situations like the mother will die from giving birth or there is incest or rape. Outside of that adoption is certainly better than death. Also men and women could practice more safe sex to reduce the number of abortions. When women abort multiple times I find it hard to believe that serial pregnancy is an accident or under rape situations. Certainly an all out ban on all abortions or no restrictions on abortions are too extreme for me.