“When libertarians propose means to assure that drug users will be held fully and financially accountable for the damage they do while stoned, I’ll pay attention to what they have to say about the WOD (of which I am no fan).”
Increase drugged and drunk driving/recklessness/etc laws - yes, BOTH because in point of fact drunk drivers actually do more damage now - to top-grade felonies. First offense if you cause damage to others while drunk or drugged: minimum $100,000 fine payable to the person so injured, minimum 10 year jail sentence, assets to be seized to cover the other parties’ damage in full.
Sound good?
Sound good?
Make them a ward of the state for ten years? Are you kidding? What makes you think that the average druggie will be able to fund restitution? That's pathetic.
When caught at an accident site in which someone has died, if obviously inebriated, death within 24 hours. How's that? Worse, you don't address the multigenerational damage users do via the damaged kids they let the government raise because nobody else will. You pretend that all such decisions of whether to use or not are confinable to the individual. It's nonsense. You exemplify EXACTLY libertarian attributes as I condensed them. That's why you didn't like it. It stung.
Worse, because of the spread between the cost of production and the cost of the risks posed on others attendant to drug use, there is no way to tax the drugs sufficiently, expect users to carry adequate liability insurance, or use them in controlled environments such that the user covers the cost of risk. Therein lies your problem. You have no solution.