No, what I'm pointing out is that you are attempting to ignore the coercive effects of most mind-altering drugs. It has nothing to do with how people get them, but the effects on the user(s). Of all people, those who value the products of the mind like Objectivists should be wary of the addictive/coercive nature of these substances and their deleterious effects on the minds of those who use them. These substances are addictive, meaning that once a person is hooked, it is no longer a free market exchange for the products. Values are distorted by the very nature of the substances and opportunity costs are warped and sometimes ignored entirely. And then there are the effects themselves, which are to distort or ignore reality itself in favor of some artificial construct.

Do we want people to live in Reality or some artificial realm? Do we want people to be free to choose what they value, or be enslaved to an artificial chemical need?

You are assuming that prohibition actually works. I would say the evidence is that it doesnt work. The people who want prohibited drugs seem to get them anyway, and the only thing prohibition does is increase the difficulty and danger in getting them. Prohibition creates crime where there doesnt need to be any. It costs a lot (DEA budget as well as the incarceration costs), and makes people criminals who really shouldnt be.

One could say the same thing about wanting so called illegal drugs.

The difference is that the government gives the physician a monopoly over prescriptions, and the doctors make money on the office visits. A conflict of interest, perhaps?

1) So there are chronic conditions and there are temporary ones. Chronic conditions are usually those for which there is no cure so medication is to assist in amelioration of symptoms so that the person isn't completely debilitated. Each situation is different, however - I'm not going to issue blanket statements because for many drugs, individuals respond differently. That's why the doctor-patient relationship is so key.

I also believe that there are responsibilities on both the patient's and doctor's sides to do their best to manage a chronic condition. Many patients simply see drugs as a quick fix rather than an aid. Some doctors don't have the time (or just don't want to invest in the patient enough) to coach them through the lifestyle changes necessary for their condition.

2) You are side-stepping the issue, which is that of protecting the mind. The illegal "recreational" drugs you are referring to displace rational thought and logical decision-making. We already have too many zombies who believe what the mainstream media tells them. I really don't want to enlarge that crowd. I want people who are lucent. I want people who invent and solve problems. I want people who contribute and provide value.

there are some excellent homeschooling resources which include curriculum from the 1850s-60s. From the 1st grade, incorporated into Math are always word problems teaching an 8 year old how to count back change, how to balance a simple ledger. By third grade, the children are learning more complex accounting. Speaks to the importance of jobs kids were doing at that time. I'll bet most students today do not know how to count back change, don't know how to balance a bank statement. Think that money magically appears from their parents. Actually, there are lots of adults who think that their money is managed by swiping a CC

I think, though, that doctors are swayed by a patient's complaint. It is often why they over-prescribe anti-biotics. Think about it. The patient complains of pain and you do not prescribe anything for the pain-they'll be right back in your office. Pain management is difficult.

1). Doctors are the premier drug peddlers today. Some drugs are lifesavers, granted. But the whole Prozac thing and pain killers? Prices are propped up by the need for Doctor promoted prescriptions but these things are legal

2) without prohibition propping up the prices of street drugs, peddling on the street wouldn't be profitable. Why go through a street peddler when you could get them at a safe and reliable Walmart.

True. That's another of the agencies to get the ax. There are so many federal agencies that should never have been created and should be abolished- it's mind boggling where to begin. Hence the storyline of the series JERICHO on Netflix. Great series very relevant to today.

but what about the ATF? why do we need that agency-especially with all the corruption that surrounds that agency

It's one thing to peddle useful wares. It's quite another to peddle addictive substances which muddle the mind. For a trade to be good, both parties have to benefit in the long run.

I agree that drug prohibition has its supporters who benefit from the exercise of power and the wages they get. It will be very difficult to just close theDEA for example.

"The government, through stupid and senseless anti drug prohibitions, creates a high profit marke"
It would be hard (not impossible) to shut down the gov't agencies and reduce the level of policing. Many people in those jobs don't want them to go away. So they need to be fighting a never-ending war on these enterprises providing people what they want. As you say it teaches that criminality pays. It also makes the law this kind of arbitrary peril, like accidents. Most people break the law, but it's rare that someone gets unlucky and gets found out. Maybe the police enter because of a house fire and look the other way to some drugs because everyone does it. Or maybe they don't. It could be luck. They could be acting on their own personal biases of any sort, including racial. That leads to another huge can of worms. It's hard to quantify the costs of drug prohibition.

At the tender age of 8 I began mowing and cleaning neighbors lawns to earn spending money. At 13 I worked the summer 300 miles from home on a cotton farm hoeing weeds and helping my employer with his crop dusting business, learned to drive trucks and flag aircraft on the field. It was a great time and earned enough to have nice clothing for school that year. The old photographs of children working in industrial situations were when young people worked on the farm with their parents to help bring in the food the family needed. When the parents were able to leave for the factories they were the preferred labor they were more capable. As better tools provide for better income the 'need' for children to help support the family became an opportunity for children to learn to earn and manage their money. In third world countries it is often the difference between a family surviving and choosing something more dangerous to earn an income. Let people work out their problems on their own.

My copy is from when I subscribed in 1962

It was also reprinted by NBI as part of pamphlet with the other part being on women.

The author is Hessen, Robert, and is in Chapter 8 in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" It is not his complete essay, however. But the book is reasonably priced and a must read for anyone interested in Objectivisn in this forum :)

Nope. Google for Bobby and his dad Herb and you'll learn more.

As far as my faulty memory works, I remember a lecture by Branden and Rand. The subject of child labor during the Industrial revolution came up. A questioner, obviously anti-capitalism asked about the horrible conditions under which children were forced to work. Rand, with a Mona Lisa smile, turned her enormous brown eyes at the questioner and asked, "What do you supposed the children that didn't or couldn't work did? The questioner stumbled and bumbled trying to think of a killer answer. Before he could put together a coherent answer, the soft smile, and softer eyes turned suddenly hard and flinty, "I'll tell you" she said. "They died."

Being a street child is a form of slow death. Death of spirit, death of innocence, and in many cases, death of soul and then body. Banning a bad situation without making provisions for the consequences is usually worse than the thing being banned.

Robert Hessen wrote “Child Labor and the Industrial Revolution” in the April 1962 issue of the Objectivist Newsletter. What he wrote then not only applies today, it further develops the Anoop Verma article.