Of course I think the default position should always be to allow people the liberty to do what they want. And I believe that we should move away from that position only after great deliberation.
I have a close family member who is an addict. The consequences and suffering are extreme. Ten years of hell. Thankfully things are better now but with addiction you live one day at a time. The whole family.
So I am biased. There have been times that I could well have taken a gun and shot a dealer dead. Its been that bad.
So how do I feel about it?
I think that the laws we have on the books have failed. We have no shortage of supply on the streets and we criminalize people that use drugs recreationally, those that are not true addicts, and fail to provide resources to help those who are.
And we have created a gang culture that spawns violence and crime.
If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten.
I'd move slowly in terms of legalization but I think its time to do something different. The most valid point in favor of legalization is that criminalization appears to cost society more than it benefits.
But that might be wrong. I'd say get the Federal government out of it and let the States determine local laws. People can then vote with their feet. Thats the way it is supposed to work under our Constitution.
I am, and always have been, in favor of getting the Federal government the heck out of the way. To use the Federal government to overturn a bad state law is like unleashing a dragon to deal with a bad king. That is to say, absolutely foolhardy, you'd be unleashing something far worse than whatever it is you were trying to deal with in the first place.
You've got to remember that your family member was an addict in spite of the governemnt declaring him a criminal. Government prohibition didn't work. I don't know your situation, but I do know if your family member were allowed to access his drug legally, he'd be able to get them cheaper. At the very least, that would make it less likely that he would ever have to steal to pay for his addiction. It would make him more likely to be able to function better in society. Think of nicotine. I know multiple people who are addicted to it. Yet they do function relatively well in society. Why? Because its legal. Granted, the government is still screwing them over by taxing the heck out of it, but even still, it would be more expensive on the black market. Nicotine withdrawal causes problems, and some people try to quit and fail. While I don't know that all of them would steal to feed their addiction if that was their only choice, I suspect some people would. Yet since it is legal, they don't have to become criminals, they can instead pay a moderate price on the free market. Some drugs are even worse than nicotine of course (Although I don't think marijuana is) and the consequences of addiction are even worse. In some cases, such as heroin, the demand is totally inelastic, its so addictive that you'll pay any price after the first dose. Either the market will be allowed to drive the price down, and those people who would buy no matter what could do so without stealing, or they will be forced to pay extreme prices because of artificial supply decreases through prohibition and thus likely steal to get their drugs. As much as you may hate that drug dealer, his existance drove the price down and made your family member more able to pay for his addiction rather than have to steal to attain it.
Let me be clear that i don't support drug use or drug sales. I am morally opposed to both. But I do not believe people should go to jail for either one of them. Government should allow people to live irresponsibly if they see fit. As for profiting off of it, if nothing else, by doing so they reduce the misery of those that would seek to buy those drugs whether supply was high enough to meet demand or not.
