Talk about worse case scenarios!
Still, I'd like to see the country crawl out of the muck and take up what vestiges of freedom are left.

I’m an Objectivist. I quoted Ayn Rand in support of my position. The bad events that you cite are occurring within a society and political system that criminalizes drugs, so criminalizing drugs is not working. What it is doing is creating violent drug cartels operating with impunity inside and outside our borders, massive political corruption in the U.S. and elsewhere, waves of illegal immigration by people fleeing drug gang violence, financial incentives to get both children and adults hooked on drugs, the destruction of inner-city neighborhoods and schools, and huge profits for the illegal drug cartel. Legalizing drugs will not solve all the problems you cited, but drug prohibition makes them worse, just as alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s led to widespread disrespect for the law and the rise of gangsters such as Al Capone.

I started by saying our local Sheriff was hiding B&E reports to avoid filing charges against drug users. You did not seem to care that a nurse was pulled from her car and robbed by a drug criminal. You cannot say all drugs users should get a pass and will be model citizens if they can only have freedom. Studies show, these crimes against average citizens will not lessen if drugs are legal. The point is, a society of people who are not free, legal or not, who do not live by the equal trade value of Objectivism. Get your drug freedom, any limits, or anything goes? Then tell me how these people are not still unfree, as they seek a substance to get through the day and must answer to some supplier. That is the issue. Why are you not concerned about drugs forced on school children via Rx? Why are you not concerned about the people who spend support money on drugs, no matter how cheap, when it is supposed to feed and clothe their children. Is the only freedom you care about that of getting drugs! No man has the right to force another to pay, via welfare or other seized gov't. funds, to pay for the drugs of another, nor for the antidote to overdose. that is a freedom that we are not seeing and should. If drug users deserve freedoms, then where are the endless freedoms being denied the rest of us? Maybe the question is, are you an Objectivist, or a one note drug rights advocare only?

Freedom does not come in a nanny state either, which we have now and which is an essential requirement for a "drug warrior" society. You want me to quote Ayn Rand? Okay, try this on for size: "The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use." - The Virtue of Selfishness. Explain to me how criminalizing the use, purchase and sale of drugs is consistent with Ayn Rand's statement above.

The crime rates among Calif, youth declined becauset hey were not arrested for possession. Yes, crime rates for arrests listed in those other studied showed a decline, as they no longer counted possession. However, most studies show that crimes rates against the general public would not be significantly lowered, as the same people who were once arrested for possession, usually also have a criminal lifestyle.
"Beyond Politics and Reason" reports the crime rate for such crimes would be reduced, "but not dramatically".The question also arises in some studies about, once decriminalized, would drug use among present non-users increase, leading to future crime? Also, once the present dealers are replaced by politicians, government, or local leaders as suppliers, what will the former dealers do, enter the work force - not likely. Dealers in three piece suits can be just as violent and greedy as street dealers.
The thing that really is the issue for me is, how so many want this drug freedom, yet never are concerned about the freedoms of those they victimize. They never admit they are not free at all, but are tied to some supplier somewhere. They are driven to get their freedom promised drugs, but they are at the mercy of whoever is then supplying them. They are not at all free as Roark or Rearden, which I thought was the goal of an Objectivist. This free drug filled utopia you call for, just seems to be leading us farther from the internal strength shown in the courtroom scene in "Fountainhead". I notice you never mention AS or Rand, but quote the Bilderberg controlled "Time" magazine. Maybe you don't really understand freedom, it does not come in a syringe.

Interesting point.
A friend does outreach in several prisons, esp. women's. She swears that all the women drug offenders, usually not just for drugs use, but crimes connected to them, were because of the women going along with men. She also says that they drug them in prison to keep them quiet. Sounds a bit like what nursing homes do to seniors, only with Rx narcotics.

That will work, only if the drug user is also respectful of the rights of others, which too often does not happen. /self indulgence rarely leads to a peaceful respectful society. Look at all the marchers who have no respect for the other side. Agreed, criminalizing the use is not going to make the user more Galt like, but we can't just go all Woodstock either. Criminal lifestyle is ingrained in too many young folks.

It used to be that Republicans were also conservatives. That is no longer the case and is the primary cause for the RINO appellation.

And yes, you hit the nail on the head when you cite that the party affiliation is more important than the actual values espoused. And why is that? Source of money. It's all right there.

“According to studies, decriminalizing drug use, would have little impact on crimes rates.” Really? Check out these studies:

Study: US Marijuana Legalization Could Cut Cartel Profits By 30%
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-anal...

Legalizing marijuana may decrease violent crime, studies say
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29478...

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? (Yes it did!)
http://content.time.com/time/health/a...

California Marijuana Decriminalization Drops Youth Crime Rate To Record Low: Study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11...

Want more studies? I can get you as many as you want.

Neither major party really has a guiding principle, other than supporting whoever and whatever puts the most power and influence into the hands of the DNC/RNC and keeps it there. And in both cases it's the biggest money donors who get to sit on that committee. The party platforms are smoke and mirrors.

The Libertarian Party folks deserve credit for having principles and trying to follow them, even as they throw away their small chance to win by not even trying to purge themselves of kooks. What the LP needs is a Steve Jobs or Sergey Brin to focus their efforts in ways that can succeed.

Substitute “alcohol” for the word “drugs” in your post above. We know how well alcohol prohibition worked out 90 years ago, the amount of crime it spawned, and the widespread contempt and disregard for the law it created, which led to its ultimate repeal. That turned out to be nothing compared to today, with violent drug cartels operating with impunity inside and outside our borders, the massive political corruption in the U.S. and elsewhere that drug prohibition has created, waves of illegal immigration by people fleeing drug gang violence, the financial incentives to get both children and adults hooked on drugs, the destruction of inner-city neighborhoods and schools, and the huge drug profits funding all of the above while billions in taxpayer money is wasted each year in a futile attempt to roll back this tide. Tell me that all this, along with the loss of many of our civil liberties, is worth it to “protect” society from a relatively few people who might space out in a public area. Decades of criminalizing drugs have obviously failed to lead to the “civil society” that you and most of the rest of us desire. Decriminalizing drugs is not a cure-all either, but it will certainly lead to a society that is more civil, more respectful of individual rights, and less hostile than the one we see all around us today.

Actually, several university studies as well as economic studies agree with the Marshall. Some have even predicted the amount of decrease expected in price. You also have the drug companies looking to compete with the street drugs for profit, who are obviously against legalizing, as Rx drugs bring in good profits. I asked for solutions as to how to legalize and still keep people on the street safe from drug related crime, when it spills over, outside the users turf. We have to consider that the person on the street has freedoms and rights, which should not be overshadowed by the rights of the drug user. Rand spoke of mentally impaired people, not the drug user per se, but if one cannot make a rational decision because under the influence, , how can they be considered rational? Such a state is about as far removed from being an Objectivist as you get. How is it any different than the moochers in AS being under the influence of politicians and others, rather than being in control of their own existence? Screaming set everyone loose to have the right to drop out and space out, just sounds like hippie talk/ Is this just about marijuana, or is this make all drugs legal. I get the feeling some want absolute freedom of access to anything. Do you want no limits at all. Do you want the lawyers to be the ones to profit rather than the mob? I just am not sure what the goal is here. Personally, I want a civil society with people who are responsible, work, and make clear headed decisions that further their goals. I don't see anyone so far asking for that, why? Where is the society of reason?

According to studies, decriminalizing drug use, would have little impact on crimes rates. The experts say that the drugs and criminal lifestyle are so intertwined, that those who do criminal acts would likely continue. We have a new class of dealer, they are called lawyers and law enforcement, the price would not drop much and we would have white collar dealers. A lot of the violence admittedly is user vs dealer, but drugs tend to lead to violence around male users while female users are more likely to become victims of men, not all users.

"Suggest a solution, because the Marshall I talked to said legalizing will not make them cheap enough." Is this marshal an economist? Does he have any research to back up that statement? Without widespread legalization of drugs, how could anyone arrive at a reasonable estimate of how cheap they would become? Sounds like an official line by someone who supports the anti-drug laws and is paid to enforce them.

Decriminalizing drug use would go a long way by itself toward making drug use a "non looter" crime. Just like decriminalizing alcohol in the 1930s reduced the level of violence by taking gangsters such as Al Capone out of the equation.