So if you’re not advocating drug usage by legalization exactly what should the stipulations be for purchasing legalized drugs?
Why should there be any? I mean look at Sudaphed, great stuff, but it's legal and "stipulated" ... but all that stipulation means is that you can *never* stock up with it when it's on sale, and that you can't buy bulk "for the year." IE it is only a hassle and a burden.
If someone wants to kill themselves -- mind you most don't really want to kill themselves -- then we cannot keep them from it unless we violate them, forcing them to eat and drink, keeping "dangerous things" out of their reach, and otherwise invalidating them as individuals.
I'm not advocating for the use of drugs; what I am doing is dissenting the government's involvement. It should be friends, family, his church, his doctor... but not "the government." Shirking our fellows into relying on the government is saying, in action not word, "I don't care enough to help you."
The idea that taking the profit motive out of drug distribution would not put the cartels out of business is absurd. However, to raise the question as you do whether one is willing to accept open distribution, or very open controlled distribution, of extremely dangerous drugs is legitimate because half measures will not prevail over the drug cartels because they will not eliminate the profit motive.
That means that those of us who advocate the legalization of drugs must be courageous enough to advocate the legalization of the most deadly drugs and the most addictive drugs. It does no good to stand for the legalization of pot only. The profit motive must be withdrawn from the trade and that means the profit motive for all drugs. That implies easy access at reasonable prices below prices which are profitable for cartels to operate for adults of extremely dangerous and extremely addictive drugs. There is no way around that.
The situation we have today is similar: we have easy access at reasonable prices (but prices nevertheless inflated because the drug is illegal so the trade is profitable for cartels) by adults or children to extremely dangerous and extremely addictive drugs.
I want the choice. I am a conservative I want the choice vested in me as an individual and not taken away from me and invested in a government. I want the power to choose to be free of drugs and at the same time to be free of the threat of being mugged so that some addict can pay for his habit by robbing me. I want to be free of the threat of home invasion. I want to be able to enjoy free access to the public square. Therefore, I am willing to tolerate others making the wrong choice and addicting themselves because a dangerous, addictive substance is relatively easy and legal to obtain. My belief is that fewer people will make that choice because there is no incentive for addicts to push drugs to fund their own habits. Presumably, addicts will have access to cheap drugs and will have no need to resort to crime or violence to satisfy their habituation. The government chronically makes the wrong choices for us, it deprives us of freedom of choice, it exposes us to violence, it creates a black market and actually supports prices within that market.
I want to end the moral hazard of drug abuse. If an adult citizen of the United States makes a choice to use hazardous drugs let's him alone bear the consequences as much as possible-to the degree that he alone bears the consequences for abusing alcohol. Let not society, by rendering the choice illegal, shift the costs and unanticipated consequences onto those of us who choose not abuse drugs. Let the government stop making me collateral damage in its war on drugs.
The degree to which drugs by their very nature cause collateral damage to family members and other members of society should be reduced because the incidence of drug use falls when there is no financial incentive to push drugs. If not, if the rate of consumption stays the same, we have at least gotten our Bill of Rights back.