Only a tiny fraction of the lives ruined in association with drugs were ruined due to drugs themselves. The vast majority were ruined due to drug prohibition. From millions spending years in jail, to countless thousands becoming victims of violence associated with prohibition culture. Even most property crime associated with drug use is a direct result of drugs being much more expensive due to prohibition than they would be in a free market.
Bounce wrote:This is ridiculous.
No, it is
your claims that are ridiculous, as well as objectively false.
The cheapness of drugs is not going to change the outcome.
Already proved false where drugs have been legalized, as in Portugal. Are more than 1% of Portugal's entire population locked in steel cages for doing something that violated no one's rights? No? Then you have already admitted that the outcome is different.
An addict will use till they need the money, at which point they will commit crime.
No, that is just false and
RIDICULOUS garbage from you. Addicts try to use just enough to get the effect they want. It is the unknown purity of illegal drugs that leads to most ODs.
When heroin was made illegal in the USA 100 years ago, there were an estimated 250,000 heroin addicts (that's about how many the annual sales of heroin would supply). While their health was not optimal (most suffered from severe constipation, and many were poorly nourished because they found it hard to hold down a job), they did not constitute a significant social problem. Certainly they were no more likely to steal to support their habits than smokers or alcoholics. Indeed, it was even known at the time that alcohol was the only commonly used drug whose USE, not prohibition, was associated with violent crime. That fact remains true today (there is some evidence that use of crystal meth slightly elevates the risk of violence, though meth users tend to be paranoid, and not violent as long as they can get their drug).
There are no links between the drop of price in drugs and the reduction of crime.
More of your ridiculous and anti-scientific garbage. You have already been proved wrong by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.
The war on drugs is problematic, but unrestricted use of drugs would not be better.
We already know that it
would be better. The experiment has been done, and was completed more than 80 years ago. The American people are just not intelligent enough to understand the results of that experiment, as they were 80 years ago.
At most we can say, in a free market, that people's compensation, tends towards their marginal productivity.
Nope. Wages are determined by the productivity of labor
on marginal land. The landowner takes all production in excess of that amount.
The idea that marginal productivity relates to someones economic production and thus their economic worth seems pretty intuitive to me.
Intuitive and plausible, but false.
If you're fine with the existence of a hereditary capital class, I guess we'll have no agreement here. However, I feel that it undermines the equality principles of libertarianism.
It's the hereditary, parasitic landowning class that feudal "libertarians" brown-nose for, and you are mistaken if you think they have any interest in equality of rights or opportunity.