Replies

You misunderstand the nature of the question, which was directed to another poster. Since that person had not addressed the essence of my post in the reply, I asked directly whether or not that person felt there would be no ill effects of legalization. I was hoping to get that person to list such downsides as he or she may project them. I did not mean to imply that only with no ill effects should legalization be adopted.

Of course the issue is whether “the effects of legalizing some or all of these drugs would involve trade-offs more or less beneficial than the current strategy?” I did not want to put words into another poster's mouth, or in this case mouse.

I agree totally with the question above. My original post addressed my opinion that those in favor of legalization misjudge the benefits of that idea while dismissing the downside.

In that case we agree completely. There are experts who study the hard-science of addiction, and the epidemiology is clear-cut: there will be more drug addicts, and we know roughly how many at least over the long term, and assuming society does not drastically change. There will be fewer non-violent offenders in prison, and we know that number, too. We will do less violence to our Constitution, and I like that. But we will also have more dead pedestrians and motorists, and many of them will be innocent victims, and I'm not so sanguine about those. But again... trade-offs.

I agree with you that many Libertarians are kooks, stoners, or utopians (having, many years ago been one -- Libertarian, that is -- I'll take an oath on the number of crazies in the Party) who seem to have very childish beliefs about the benefits.

If Paul sticks to the Constitutionalists' position that this is not a Federal matter any more than wife-beating (which is now also a Federal Beef) I would have no problem with the position.

You misunderstand the nature of the question, which was directed to another poster. Since that person had not addressed the essence of my post in the reply, I asked directly whether or not that person felt there would be no ill effects of legalization. I was hoping to get that person to list such downsides as he or she may project them. I did not mean to imply that only with no ill effects should legalization be adopted.

You may feel that I misunderstood the question as well, so I'll restate my reply.

I can't imagine how severe the downside of an alternative would have to be before I'd be willing to have my Constitutional rights, the proper balance of power between me and the state, abridged to avoid it.

OTOH, I also have no problem with leaving drugs illegal and simply repealing the laws and court decisions that have granted government new powers to fight it, or kiddie porn, or terrorism, or whatever the bogeyman du jour is. I have no problem with them fighting it to whatever extent they can under the traditional understanding of the BOR and without spending much of my money on it.