Most people wouldn't do meth, heroin or bath salts if marijuana and cocaine were legal. I'm not saying heroin should be widely available, I'm just saying for a very high price people should be able to use it if they wish. If they become addicted, and want to receive treatment, then we will have treatment/rehab centers specifically catering to heroin addicts. Otherwise, let them die. It's their life, to enjoy or destroy.
Compromise is not a good idea. I don't want anyone to compromise. I abhor neo-liberalism, but I don't want them to compromise with me. I want a full conversion or no conversion at all.
Let's face it, if we had 20 LP Congressmen who could keep the R's and D's in check, Washington would work a lot better.
_____
I support drug education programs in the schools, just like sex education. It's important people know the effects of drugs in a non-biased manner. Just the facts. Don't even tell the children they shouldn't do them. Just get to them before the drug dealer does.
I would never do drugs, nor would anyone I know. (or at least, that's what they say now)
However, it is my firm belief that my opposition to something does not equal good legal policy. I'm not the one writing the laws. Crimes need a victim. Charlie Sheen is not a victim.
It is true that crack was a reaction to a rise in cocaine prices, partly due to law enforcement efforts to cut into the trade. Meth was a reaction to gov't making crack ingredients difficult to obtain. Yes, some people would do cocaine instead if it were legal and reasonably cheap. But not all.
Legalizing weed and plain coke, I'm okay with. Heroin, LSD and peyote I'm not sure about. Crack and Meth are too toxic to be produced and sold legally, no legit company would touch the stuff in today's litigation climate.
The problem here with no-compromise Libertarianism is that only about 2% of the population wants to live under that system. If you refuse to compromise what will you do with the 98% who disagree? There's your problem, and there's the reason the LP almost never wins an election, as much as the structurally-imbedded two-party preference.
Libertarian Lite COULD win elections... start off with just legalizing weed, removing unConstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms and self-defense, and trimming the Social Welfare state down to a more modest "safety net" that is focused on "giving a hand UP" instead of a "hand-out". Do this instead of trying to legalize EVERYTHING all at once, and instead of trying to end ALL social welfare INSTANTLY, and you might get some traction.
Focus on minimizing our involvement in foreign wars rather than foreswearing all military action unless we're actually invaded, and people will see that as a more reasonable and desireable position.
Spend more time focused on restoring the liberties people are most interested in, and minimizing the bureaucracy nobody likes, and more middle-of-the-road positions on most other things.... extreme positions and calls for instant and catastrophic change tend to scare people off.
You may, over time, be able to get where you want to go (more or less) by incrementalism, but when Libertarians take an "ALL or nothing, NOW or never" attitude they turn off the majority of voters.
There are only two ways to have everything YOUR way with ZERO compromise...
1. Total dictatorship (a total contradiction to all Libertarianism stands for)
Or
2. Almost everyone agrees with LP on effectively everything (never happen... you can scarcely get 2/3rds to agree on ANYTHING, let alone 90%+ on EVERYTHING).
Any democratically based system, by necessity,
operates on
compromise.