Should we outlaw smoking? To permit it is “a societally-approved license to abandon reason and reality.” And the rest of us have to “pay for it” in the form of a higher burden on our near-socialized health care system. Same with junk food, we need to outlaw it in order to fight the obesity epidemic. In fact, anything that is not “societally-approved” should be illegal. Welcome to the nanny state.

Your “rest of us pay for it” argument fails on three counts. First, the rest of us are paying for it in large part because drug use is criminalized, leading to heavy enforcement costs and considerable corruption within law enforcement. So that’s not an argument for keeping the drug laws, it’s an argument for repealing them. Second, we “pay for it” because many of the costs of people’s irresponsible behavior are socialized, thanks to the welfare state and government’s propensity to leave drunk drivers on the road, send drug users to jail, and finance “rehab” programs. Third, the horrors you describe exist in large part because drug use is criminalized, leading people to steal to support a habit that they could otherwise afford, and creating huge financial incentives for violent drug cartels to introduce drugs to schoolchildren and others that they would otherwise leave alone. The anti-drug laws are much more destructive to both economic growth and personal liberty than drugs themselves.

And the anti-drug laws arent more of the same ??? Prohibition just doesnt work, in addition to it being immoral.

Prohibition didnt work at all. It created organized crime. Good documentary on netflix on it. Prohibition was a disaster.

Actually, the history of Prohibition is very different from the romanticized view seen in "The Untouchables". It was working very well. The politicians chose the tax revenues and added societal costs because it led to more governmental control and they were able to get people to vote for it (sound familiar).

Think about it. Now businesses have to get liquor licenses to operate. There is no freedom to distribute alcohol! And now customers pay "sin" taxes on alcohol - no matter where you buy them. And all for what? So the government can run rehab programs and make "three strikes" laws all while wailing over the lives lost due to intoxicated drivers! It is just one more crisis the government can take advantage of to tax and control us.

yeah. prohibition just doesnt work. personal responsibility and education is what is needed.

Such penalties should be more severe; I believe
that the mere FACT of being drunk on duty, or
while driving, is punished, regardless of whether
any accident harmful to another actually occurred; as well it should, as the offender was putting other(s) at risk.

All those things you bring up are indeed bad consequences of drug use, which is why I wouldnt use them or advocate anyone using them. BUT, the same argument applied to alcohol use, and look at what prohibition accomplished- the rise of the mafia and terrible crime. In the end, alcohol use seemed to be ok as long as it was taxed, and here we are today.

To be more precise, there are certain behaviors which carry penalties which are more severe if done in conjunction with a willful abandonment of personal responsibility through drug or alcohol use. The problem I have is that people are more likely to engage in these restricted behaviors when their senses are clouded - not less. I see an inherent flaw in the notion of personal responsibility being advocated at the same time as an abandonment of rational thought.

The way I see it, the argument to legalize recreational drug use is precisely that: a societally-approved license to abandon reason and reality. If you can show me where I am mistaken, I may revise my conclusion.

The problem is that once these substances are imbibed, one abrogates the self-regulation and self-ownership of one's mind. Then, the person offering the substance gains control - be they government or otherwise. It's all very nice to throw around the anti-government label, but really all government is to society is the approved law-making and law-enforcing body. If society makes recreational drug use legal, all that does is give government one more tool to enslave the people - be it through the addiction of chemical substances or the addiction of the welfare state.

Even in cases where alcohol is legal, I believe the
citizen is not allowed to drive while drunk, or to be
drunk in public. These acts should still be crimes.
Also there are people who have undertaken special obligations, such as cab drivers, police officers, military servicemembers, who are not
allowed to be "under the influence" while on duty. They should still be punished if they do, and held responsible. And a parent who lets his
child wander into a pool and get drowned while
he (the parent) is under the influence of drink or
a drug, should also be held responsible for it by
the law.

I, too, think that if anyone employs child labor he
should be made to go by rules so that the arrange-
ment shall be humane; children are not free agentsand responsible adults; but, if properly handled, it would be better than their being on the street and getting into crime, at least until such
time as it would be no longer economically nece-
ssary for children to work.

" If you seek a society which encourages self-delusion and chemically-induced stupor"
I think no one argues for the government to encourage that.

I’m in favor of the free intellect, including the freedom to regulate the content of one’s own mind and one’s own mental processes, and taking responsibility for the consequences of doing so. I’m not in favor of having other people exert such control over me, using the coercive power of government. There’s a big difference between being opposed to something and making it a criminal offense.

No one argued that freedom was without cost. The question was one of who should bear the cost - or the risks of the costs of someone who chooses to intentionally - not accidentally - abandon reason. I seek a society where logic and thought are praised and sought after and where reality is paramount. If you seek a society which encourages self-delusion and chemically-induced stupor - along with all the remedial baggage and consequences - I'm not interested in being a part of your society.

"But the rest of us pay for it when someone else chooses to abandon reason."
Freedom isn't free. Part of living is a free society is you may somehow be affected by the repressions of other people's decisions.

"what about the ATF?"
And why do they need weapons? When I first heard about them as a teenager it sounded like a joke, not something in real life.

In all these cases, doctors, street drugs, and KHalling's example of patients asking for more antibiotics, producers find a way to get their product to willing consumers.

"Actually, I wouldnt lobby for legalization. I would lobby to remove the criminality of the manufacture, distribution and sale of them."

Uh, that's exactly the same thing. Removing criminality is legalization.

"Just to set the record, I would not auggest anyone actually use the drugs, just that its not my business to police someone elses use of their body."

But the rest of us pay for it when someone else chooses to abandon reason. We pay for it in taxes for law enforcement, jails, etc. We pay for it in the broken homes which result from parents too concerned about their next fix that they fail to take care of their own families. We pay for it in domestic abuse and violence. We pay for it in the lives ruined and lost due to intoxicated drivers. We pay for it in higher insurance premiums.

You focus on merely the economic aspects of the argument, but I ask you this: given all these additional societal costs, does that not make these very cartels not businessmen at all, but leeches - and leeches of the very worst kind? They enslave people in order to make a profit, and by virtue of their operation defer the auxiliary costs of their operations onto all of the rest of society! The only way I would support people taking recreational drugs is if as part of the price of their psychosis they agreed to be incarcerated by these drug cartels for the remainder of their lives so that society would never have to bear the burdens of the choices of these self-deluded individuals.

Yes. I see no significant differences in either the substances involved or the effects on the subject. Are you in favor of or opposed to the free intellect?

The same argument can be used to advocate bringing back prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Are you in favor of that?

Actually, I wouldnt lobby for legalization. I would lobby to remove the criminality of the manufacture, distribution and sale of them. The cartels would never lobby for this- they want them illegal so the prices are high. In a free market there would be no cartels- how would they compete with straight up walgreens?
Just to set the record, I would not auggest anyone actually use the drugs, just that its not my business to police someone elses use of their body.

The problem is that those who do drugs always end up hurting others as a result. Addiction turns people into thieves - and worse - all to feed their addictions. Why an Objectivist would support anyone deliberately destroying one's rational capacities is beyond me. If you would rather focus on the productivity of the drug cartels and the tax collectors (who are the one's lobbying for legalized drugs), you go ahead. It won't change the fact that the primary argument is that of promoting logical thinking. One can not do that under a chemical-induced stupor. To lobby for the "legalization" of these substances is to legalize the slavery of addiction. Rationalize such a course of action at your own peril.

I wont argue that the prohibited drugs are not mind altering. I would say that if someone wants to take them, they should be free to do so and suffer the benefits or consequences of doing so. Prohibition just doesnt work and creates crime, cartels, and artificially high prices- without having any effect of convincing people not to take them