"Grim" has some thoughts.

Which is the extreme position: to think that people should be able to put substances into their own body without government interference, or that people should be imprisoned for ingesting smoke from burning leaves?

Is it really "extreme" to think one religion inferior to another? I'm not a member of either one, but if one religion really does preach peace and turning the other cheek, and another believes that all non-adherents to it should die, who really doesn't believe that the former is superior to the latter? This kind of loony moral relativism is what I find extreme, and not in a good way.

In any event, like Glenn Reynolds, I consider myself an extremist, but an eclectic one. And like Barry Goldwater, I don't think that's necessarily a vice.

My day has started somewhat poorly today, so don't take this as a transference of negative energy, but the post is broken in IE...

As for drugs (and alcohol for that matter), I think a case can be made that consumption decreases the public good. As in, a world without stoned or drunk drivers is better than one with. And that doesn't even mention the fact that many habitual drug users become a drag on society. I'd be much happier about that if we could just say, "well maybe you shouldn't have done drugs" instead of providing free health care for life... I don't have free health care, after all.

I can definately see the flip side, where an individual should not be forced to adhere to the majority's morals. But I think there is a gray area when there non-adherence raises a risk of my death, for example in a drunk/stoned driving accident. And, of course, putting people in jail for said driving does not seem to have any effect on said death rate...

The fact is, there are some things that, if allowed, dramatically increase the risk of illegal things happening. Stoned and drunk people have difficulty making good decisions, and those bad decisions put others at risk.

Of course, the reason I mention both is that one is illegal and one isn't...

I'm always conflicted about the "war on drugs." On the one hand, it doesn't make much sense to throw people in prison for years for using drugs; it's a lot more important to get violent criminals off the street, and treatment, possibly forced treatment, probably would make a lot more sense. Would it be enough to treat drugs more like DUI all the time? A car accident can get you in trouble, but a car accident while under the influence can get you in a lot more trouble. Perhaps a criminal activity conducted under the influence of drugs (or in order to obtain money for drugs?) is more serious than the same crime without the influence.

But on the other hand:

Is it the case that law enforcement is able to bust bad actors for drug violations when it is difficult to prove any other offense? Is that okay if it is so?

If drugs were legal or quasi legal, could a business owner enforce a no drug policy? Or a no-influence-while-at-work policy?

And, most of all: I know a few people who have ruined their lives (up to now at least) with drugs. I don't want my children going down that path. Why would I want that path to be legal or even quasi legal? I don't want anybody offering my child drugs if I can help it.

I've seen people ruin their lives with alcohol too.

Jeff Mauldin wrote:
"If drugs were legal or quasi legal, could
a business owner enforce a no drug policy?
Or a no-influence-while-at-work policy?"

Don't see why not... such policies are not
dependent on the illegality of the proscribed
behavior: for example, one could have a policy
against working under the influence of alcohol
even in a jurisdiction that did not generically
forbid it.

As for the question of people "ruining their
lives" etc., we tried this before, remember...
it soon became apparent that Prohibition did more
to cause new problems of its own than to relieve
those of alcohol-intoxication. Why has it taken
us, as a society, so long to apply this lesson
to other intoxicants??

-dw

It's okay to believe heretics, infidels and non=believers should die.
It's criminal to act on those beliefs.
I believe the neo-cons should be dragged off in chains
to Nuremberg, it's illegal for me to do that without an
arrest warrant from a court.

"As for the question of people "ruining their
lives" etc., we tried this before, remember...
it soon became apparent that Prohibition did more
to cause new problems of its own than to relieve
those of alcohol-intoxication."

I've heard arguments to the contrary, that prohibition actually did a pretty good job at what it was intended to do.

Would we have had thousands or even millions of fewer deaths in this country due to drunk driving if prohibition had continued (or not)? If it would have saved so many lives, might it have been worth putting up with illegal speakeasies, organized criminals running alcohol, and petty crimes by many average people drinking illegally in their homes?

Also consider DUI. 30 or 40 or 50 years ago, drunk driving was pretty much considered a "boys will be boys" kind of behavior, whereas now it's pretty universally held to be reprehensible and needlessly dangerous. That particular behavior is also illegal, while consuming alcohol is not.

Is there a way to destroy the drug trade while maintaining the societal taboo on drug use? I would dearly love to see all the cocaine growers in Central and South America and Afghanistan suddenly lose their competitive advantage, to see all the crime centered around the drug trade suddenly unprofitable, to see people involved in using drugs get treatment rather than incarceration, and to see addicts who are going to get their hits anyway do so without becoming involved criminals, while at the same time NOT increasing the likelihood that my three children will become drug users themselves.