Let's say drugs (bottles of wine) are legalized.
Joe Schmoe can now get all the (drug of choice) (alchohol) he wants and can afford - and that will be lots more (liquor store) because I was told in a previous post that ending the WOD will remove the profit from selling drugs (black market profit removed), so they will be cheaper.
So now Joe Schmoe can be even more self-destructive and get fried (totally drunk), and as you said above, will likely get fired from his job because of poor performance. But that's his problem, not ours.
But now Joe Schmoe has no job. But he's addicted to (drug of choice) (alchohol). So where does Joe get money to feed his addiction?
Can we say "crime"? (Oh wait, ending the WOD (repeal of prohibition) ended crime...)
Or does the government now have a "drug stamp" program, like food stamps. (That wouldn't be very libertarian...)
**********************
We've been though this before.
Didn't see an answer about how Joe Schmoe will get money to feed his drug addiction.
You can compare alcohol to hard drugs if you want - it just ain't the same.... Drinking a glass of wine every day isn't going to make you an alcoholic. Shooting heroin every day will make you an addict.
I wonder - is it possible for the recreational drug lobby to make an argument for the legalization of illicit drugs (such as marijuana) WITHOUT referencing alcohol? I can't recall ever seeing that. I don't know if I've ever seen a pro-drug person make a cogent argument without pointing the finger at Mr. Alcohol saying "But, but, but, he got away with it!"
I do like the idea that "ending prohibition will eliminate the problems associated with prohibition." You think? That's a tautology. Decriminalizing the possession of drugs will do nothing to alleviate the problems associated with the abuse of drugs, but yes - it will decriminalize possession. The abuse of drugs is a problem with drugs, not with prohibition.
There is a reason things are done the way they are. Marijuana is where "the line" is drawn. Despite what the drug lobby might repeatedly pound, jails are not full of recreational drug users. I've known more than a few people who have been cited for marijuana possession, and I think it's been worse to run a red light. So as long as the line stays there, marijuana has its status as illegal but "not that bad." And hence not strictly enforced. It's much like driving 5 MPH over the speed limit. If you raise the speed limit, can you still drive 5 MPH over the limit? Where does it stop?
Alcohol IS a drug that can be abused. The difference between alcohol and hard drugs is that you really need to try to abuse alcohol, as your body physiologically rejects excessive consumption of alcohol. As such, alcohol tends to be used in moderation with minimal effects - often unnoticeable. Harder drugs don't work that way - or at least nobody's told me about "Heroin Lite." Unless, of course, you want your drugs "altered" by the people seeking profit.
As long as demand exists, profit will exist. It's simple. Legalized recreational drugs would be heavily regulated and we'd have a whole host of "legal limits" for a whole host of different drugs. Great, let's creative a massive new department called the ATFCHM (or whatever other drugs you want to add) so we can make the government bigger.
This is not that difficult to understand. Legalizing drugs would at best transfer problems from one area to another and would undoubtedly create a massive new bureaucracy to deal with all of it.