Thank you for being the first Libertarian to step up to the plate and answer the question, however...
Your answer ignores all public safety issues associated with use of various narcotics. Government has a compelling interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizenship as well as private property. All criminal codes are based on this idea of "compelling interest of the state"...
I would rather not sacrifice freedom for safety. The government only has a few, very basic functions. To protect citizens from foreign entities; to protect citizens from one another; and to maintain a very basic public works program. It is not a constitutional role of the federal government to protect us from our own harmful decisions. We may just have to agree to disagree on this one, because I will always argue that the government should never be given the authority to sacrifice our liberty for our protection. "Compelling interests of the state" can turn into something very monstrous, indeed.
AND AGAIN, the underlying logic that implies the government must protect our health and wellness would ultimately mean a prohibition of ALL drugs, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, motorcyles, fast cars, the ability to rock climb, bungee jump, skydive, ride ATVs or dirt bikes, hiking in the Grand Canyon, etc, etc, etc, etc. You can't honestly sit there and claim that narcotics should remain illegal while alcohol kills far more than all other drugs combined!
The state has a compelling interest in insuring that the roads are safe. Drunk driving is illegal.
The federal government has a role in ensuring the inter-state highway system and other massive transportation systems are well maintained. They are also responsible for the printing and engraving of money, the minting of coin, the establishment of a standardized system of weights and measures, and a few other basic functions. It is not the role of the federal government to lease out licenses to private entrepreneurs who wish to use these roads in order to make a living. It makes no sense to pay a man something like 100k a year to lease out a license to truckers. I say, let's legalize these cottage industries.
As for drunk driving, I have my own take on that (which you probably will not accept). I believe that drunk drivers should only be punished in the cases in which they injure or kill another and/or in the cases in which they damage property. In other words, I would adopt a more reactive policy measure as opposed to punishing, fining, and/or imprisoning someone for a victimless crime. I believe it also ridiculous that the police are allowed to set-up fake undercover prostitutes in order to lure men into a hotel room where they will be arrested and charged with soliciting. The same is true of setting up fake drug deals in order to be "proactive." They're not being proactive at all. They're punsihing people for a victimless crime.
Did you ever see the movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise? Who's to say that sort of reality would not materialize? We can't keep punishing people who have committed no real crime.
Various types of narcotics can cause people to behave in an unsafe manner. That 'body is a temple' thing doesn't cut it. Your body may be yours, but if you wonder out into public while on PCP or if you fail to feed your children while on heroin--these are very legitimate issues the Libertarian across the board decriminalization of drugs doesn't address.
And again, how does the illegal nature of PCP limit or prevent the harmful effects on society by people who are doped up on PCP? How does the illegal status prevent or limit crack mothers and meth fathers from taking care of their kids? It simply doesn't, and these unfortunate stories still occur.
You seem to think the government can legislate morality. Morality can and should never be imposed on society.
So, you purpose ending all laws concerning sale and possession and just focusing on use that negatively impacts society.
Why do you think I'm tip-toeing around the issue? I'm very openly in favor of legalization, across the board. Not just in simple drug use, but in nearly all matters of individual liberty.
No more raids on private homes, but add an entirely new set of laws concerning public endangerment and improper use.
I don't even know what you're talking about. Are you trying to meld my opinions and your opinions together as one?
And the physical toll meth on heroin takes on users, that's a choice we're willing to live with as a society, no matter who gets hurt, children, families etc.
Again, it already happens on a daily basis. And as stated above, alcohol takes a much larger toll. Would you like to go back to 1919?
State employers are required to do mandatory drug testing in order to get Federal funds.
Personally, I think it is crucial that certain jobs require drug testing, but ultimately I leave it up to the decision of the private business owner. Federal funding for such testing is nonsense.
Many industries also require mandatory drug testing as part of their safety protocol - transportation, health services, trucking.
Yes I know, but what is your point? What does this have to do with legalization?
Good--so recreational drug users would not become a protected class.
But that would mean that most 'recreational users' would have very limited work options.
I don't know where or how you draw your conclusions, but I think your understanding of the situation is quite inaccurate. "Recreational users" can easily have very limited work options, whether or not the substance is controlled. Many businesses abstain from hiring interviewees with obvious signs of recreational drug use (track marks on the arm, meth mouth, poor hygiene, etc). Their options are already limited because of their decision to use, not because of any legality issue. In fact, my proposal might actually lead to more jobs for users. For starters, they won't have a criminal record because it is legal. Second of all, as a distinct possibility, less businesses will drug-test because there would be no federal funding available (and this policy of distributing largesse to businesses in order to promote greater testing ultimately means businesses that have no significant reason to test will start to test in order to receive the funding).
Well, since you said the state would not handle or regulate the sale/dispensing of drugs, than the 'business' of drugs would still continue. So, children will still get killed in turf wars, probably more often.
This is absolute nonsense! Are children killed in turf wars after we legalized alcohol? Legalization would mean an end to the black market.
Your solution would only lower the price of drugs and make them more available. You would still have all the crime, loss of work, cost to employers, plus the incidents of vehicle and industrial accidents would increate.
There's no evidence of that, but I won't argue it. Again, my mind is set on allowing individuals to own their own bodies. If that means an end to the drug wars and to the gangs that live on the profit of these black markets, I say good riddance!
You're basically talking about creating a sub-economy, a Anarcho-capitalistic black market economy what would exist completely separate from ours.
Where do you come up with this? The black market is the sub-economy. A black market exists only because a product is illegal and/or taxed to an outrageous level. Legalization would mean an end to this market, the drug war, and it would serve a crushing blow to the various gangs that rely almost exclusively on the illegal drug trade. If that means an increase in the overall number of users, I'd say that's an exchange I'm willing to live with.
However, the rest of society would still have to bear the cost of loss of life, damage to property, and an unpredictable, unreliable working class.
They already are, to an extroadinary degree! Not only does the drug laws do little to hamper the overall addiction rates across the country, but it also has devastating consequences that are felt throughout all segments of society, and beyond.
Am I missing something or are you ready to concede that it sounds good in the broad strokes, but the Libertarians really haven't thought it through.
eace
Judging from this poorly written excuse for a thorough analysis, I'd say you really need to examine the issue more carefully.
