ServiceSoon said:
And yet here we are discussing how you think the laws should be. Would I be out-of-line if I compared you to a philosopher king
If you'd read my posts more carefully you'd see that I'm calling for the end of the law--I want the law to not exist. So no, I'm not a philosopher-king. Do whatever you want, and if you violate the rights of others you'll suffer consequences.
Perhaps you, Dinwar are a part of the group that can handle smoking pot every so often or perhaps everyday,
First, this is irrelevant nonsense--demonstrably so. We allow people to do all sorts of things that can potentially harm them, or cause them to harm others; therefore, this is not the actual criteria being used to determine these laws. Second, we'll never know. I've chosen to not smoke pot, for my own reasons (same reasons as for why I don't take antihistemines or pain killers outside of medical necessity--the law doesn't come into it).
These people will have a negative impact on society.
Again, that's demonstrably not the issue here. People who can't drive are a negative impact on society. People who eat too much sugar are. And so on. That's not the criteria by which the necessity of prohibition is judged, so we can ignore that line of reasoning. It's irrelevant to this discussion.
I like to drive fast. Personally I don't see an issue with driving fast unless I cause damage to somebody else or their property. It's a victim-less crime after all. The issue is that faster speeds increase the risk of accidents and the amount of damage that takes place when they do occur. Professionals do studies and determine risk vs reward and set speed limits appropriately. I view the legalization of drugs in the same manner.
It's ironic that you chose to use this example, for several reasons. First, I know those professionals. They don't actually work that way. What actually happens is that the government tells them what safe speeds are, based on politics. Second, it's been shown that removing speed limits doesn't actually decrease safety--people generally understand what a safe driving speed is, and drive at safe speeds. This was demonstrated by the lack of increase in accidents in areas where speed limits have been removed. So you're wrong, on numerous fronts, and your own example--viewed in terms of the real world--demonstrates that quite well.
Besides, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that I've already addressed that: I've stated that driving under the influence of any chemicals should be considered automatic attempted manslaughter. Please note that I never said that an accident had to occur--all that I think should be required for such a sentence is driving under the influence of mind-altering chemicals. So the only actual social harm attributable to drugs (rather than to the war on drugs) has already been addressed.
Unfortunately, and I mean that, sometimes rights have to be violated to protect individuals.
This is perhaps the single most disturbing--I'm very tempted to say disgusting--thing I've ever read. This is the justification for the Inquisition, verbatum. Rights aren't optional. They aren't something open to negotiation. They are inviolate. Otherwise anything--and history amply demonstrates that it will be the worst kind--will ALWAYS find some justification for violating rights. And not just property--your logic leaves open the very real possibility of rulers determining that some people need to die in order to protect others. After all, life is a right, and we've already accepted that we can violate the rights of some to protect others! Congratulations: you've just justified lynchings.
It's your position that the war on drugs causes more harm than good? Has anybody substantiated this?
Is that a serious question? The War on Drugs has turned sections of the Desert Southwest into WAR ZONES. There is a BODY COUNT associated with this--a body count that's as high as most wars. And the ONLY reason for it is that drugs are illegal. If drugs were legal, there'd be a few idiots that ODed, sure, but the violent gang warfare fueled by drug money? The armed drug cartels INVADING THE STATE I LIVE IN? Not so much. Importing bananas doesn't have that level of violence. Besides, read history. Alcohol prohibition presented the exact same symptoms as our current regulatory prohibitions. People selling beer aren't particularly violent. I'm in a good position to know, as I'm quite fond of ales and hefewissens.
Right, because when alcohol prohibition was lifted huge swaths of the population died of alcohol poisoning. 