Although I agree in principle to maximum liberty, I struggle with the idea of loosening markets to addictive drugs.
I find the argument from liberty unsatisfying when immediately following there is discussion about production and trade regulation. This ignores the fact that the safe production and dispensing of these drugs is already regulated to achieve the benefits that you listed (thinking of your heroin example). What you are really asking is for the existing regulations to make it easier for people to obtain them.
I also think it's important to compare physical dependency rates and withdrawal symptoms when making broad comparisons to substances with less regulation (caffeine, alcohol, tobacco). Considering this, comparing heroin to tobacco and caffeine is a bit ridiculous. Alcohol on the other hand may be a fair comparison. I haven't done enough homework to be definitive in this regard.
The other aspect is the notion that it should be legal if nobody else is harmed. Again, I agree in principle; however, addiction of all types can have significant material impact on dependents. How could we ever monitor the 'no harm to others' idea? An argument claiming that drug use should be allowed because addicted gamblers and alcoholics neglect their families would be unconvincing.
I think the money spent policing illicit drugs would be more effectively used in education and rehabilitation programs. I also would have no problem voting for a referendum allowing marijuana use, but without a more compelling argument would vote no for a similar referendum for heroin.
I find the argument from liberty unsatisfying when immediately following there is discussion about production and trade regulation. This ignores the fact that the safe production and dispensing of these drugs is already regulated to achieve the benefits that you listed (thinking of your heroin example). What you are really asking is for the existing regulations to make it easier for people to obtain them.
I also think it's important to compare physical dependency rates and withdrawal symptoms when making broad comparisons to substances with less regulation (caffeine, alcohol, tobacco). Considering this, comparing heroin to tobacco and caffeine is a bit ridiculous. Alcohol on the other hand may be a fair comparison. I haven't done enough homework to be definitive in this regard.
The other aspect is the notion that it should be legal if nobody else is harmed. Again, I agree in principle; however, addiction of all types can have significant material impact on dependents. How could we ever monitor the 'no harm to others' idea? An argument claiming that drug use should be allowed because addicted gamblers and alcoholics neglect their families would be unconvincing.
I think the money spent policing illicit drugs would be more effectively used in education and rehabilitation programs. I also would have no problem voting for a referendum allowing marijuana use, but without a more compelling argument would vote no for a similar referendum for heroin.
