My argument was that the people committing the homicides are responsible, not the government. The government didn't force anyone to pick up a gun and go around killing other people.
This is what the government did:
1) two people exchange their goods, pot for cash
2) You (the government following your instructions with money taken from the 2 people above) run in with guns drawn threatening to kill the 2 people if they resist
3) two people are carted off to be put in cages
4) or two people resist and people die because you dont like pot
5) or the cops make a mistake and raid the wrong house and kill the occupants while conducting a constitutionally protected "reasonable" no knock search
thats for starters, I didn't even get into the black market's effect on "society". Maybe I should since you seem oblivious to how they work. Just look at over all criminal stats during drug wars and periods of relative "calm" when politicians aren't beating some social crusader's drum. The 20th century illustrates the point quite well; homicide rates doubled under Prohibition, dropped 13 years in a row following repeal in '33 and stayed at half the rate until the late 60s. It doubled again for much of the past 40 years under various drug wars.
Nixon's war on pot led to more heroin and cocaine (less pure to more pure is a black market effect), the subsequent cocaine wars led to crack and Reagan's war and the rapid expansion of coastal gangs and recruitment of minors into the drug trade. Guess what? Juvenile crime has been driving crime stats ever since. For people to argue drug wars are good for us is just... just...
Get a clue!!! At least try to back up your arguments. Show us the wonderful successes of the drug war. Y'all dont even know what consumption rates were when drugs were legal, or legal now in some places.
They weren't crimes at the time, as defined by the law of that Country and government [but so what? it's irrelevant].
They were crimes, but like you said, so what if it was legal? Who cares what the law said, they were crimes then in spite of the law and they've always been crimes. Now you're getting it, the state does not define "crime" - the concept of right and wrong predates government.
And no, the government doesn't need your consent to all its laws in order to have the moral authority to enforce them.
It does if its acting on my behalf... There are exceptions to the rule (like jury duty) but that is the rule. But you're a ferner, we here in the USA have a Declaration of Independence stating some of the principles our system is based on (ostensibly). And consent of the governed is the basis for a legitimate government. And btw, that "consent" predates government too...
If you're going to make a direct comparison between slavery/nazism/crimes against humanity and drug prohibition, then please back it up with some better arguments, because I don't accept that they are in any way comparable.
I'm not comparing the victims of these crimes, you said the state defines what is or isn't criminal and I pointed to slavery and the Nazis as my rebuttal. So you said slavery and genocide are not crimes when they are legal, right? You gotta know when to fold 'em... You're making a ridiculous argument.
The State does get to define crimes - if you think it doesn't then what kind of law-making structure would you replace it with?
One that defines crime based on the legitimacy of a victim's claim against a perpetrator. Slavery is a crime under that system, drug use is not - the former has a victim, not the latter. Under that system, you are the criminal for imprisoning millions of innocent people under the guise of "safety", ie "they" might commit actual crimes with victims.
This argument is once again flawed. If you disagree with a law or the police, you should do it in court, through the newspapers, through your Congress/parliament etc. When the police show up to enforce the law, any resulting violence is the fault of the criminals who resist arrest.
If you are gonna assign blame for violence, first identify those introducing it into the situation - that would be you (the state). Two people peacefully exchanging their goods aint violent or criminal, you trying to stop them with guns is violent (and criminal). You're blaming the victims for your violence...
I'm not getting your allusions to Minority Report or racism.
Minority Report was a movie about catching criminals before they commit their crimes based on some technology. Racism is based in part on the notion that "those" people are more likely to commit crimes, therefore "they" should be punished collectively (in whatever way the racist deems appropriate).
You mean the American brand of democracy? Check again and you'll see she was quite a fan - particularly of the principle of a constitutional republic.
A constitutional republic is not a democracy. You should read up on what the Founding Fathers thought of democracy, they weren't big fans. And she was an objectivist who would never give the state such an extraordinary power as to determine what we may or may not put in our own bodies.
This is not about Objectivism but about a real-World policy. In an Objectivist system drugs would be legalised. However, in UK/America there is a mixed economy, and I have to pay for someone else's rehab, medical costs, drug-induced killing spree etc.
Oh, so you do know of her philosophy? I was beginning to wonder. Your problem is you keep blaming the wrong people. Supposedly addicts dont vote much so the people who are voting are the people making you pay for rehab (yer paying one way or the other). So why is that ethical? You know, blaming one person for another person's sin? I dont like paying for a bloated military industrial complex but I dont think military contractors should be jailed either.
If you don't want politicians making these kind of decisions for you, then stop voting for them and vote for a libertarian alternative. If other people vote a semi-socialist government into power that makes me pay their way through life, then they lose their freedom when they put their responsibility onto me.
Umm...you dont wait for them to "put" their responsibility on you, prohibition effects millions of users and non-users who dont owe you squat. But according to that logic, anyone helped with your taxes is a criminal and should be jailed. Well, you wanna jail people even if they aint getting your taxes. But wouldn't that mean rich pot smokers like Paul McCartney are paying taxes into a system that benefits you? Does that make you the criminal?
Drug-taking is illegal. You don't protest a law by getting involved in an illegal trade - you do it by lobbying your representatives to change the law. If you first break the law then you lose the moral high-ground and show that you don't care whether you are in the right or not, or what the consequences are to others, because you are going to do it anyway.
I doubt many people use drugs to protest the law (albeit the "taboo" effect may lure some into experimenting) but doesn't that assertion require proof the law is "right" to begin with? We're back to our disagreement - I think slavery is a crime regardless of its legality and you think it aint a crime if its legal. That means I'd probably be helping runaway slaves and you'd be turning them in 150 years ago (and you're preaching ethics?). As for consequences, you continually ignore your own. Crime stats overwhelmingly show more violence and more death occur during drug wars, but here you are telling us we're safer because of a drug war.
For your second paragraph, I must ask you why drug-takers can't control themselves and refrain from breaking the law? Most people don't need to take drugs, and most people don't need to break the law to get high. Why should we allow our legal system to be dictated to by a minority of people who do? If we give into them, what else will they demand with their violence and irrationality?
Why dont you answer me first
So, you're admitting now that prohibition comes with more crime? More danger? What was your argument again? Safety?
I can only speak for myself, I dont respect any law that says my body belongs to politicians. Hell, sounds like an abortion debate... but smoking pot aint the same as having an abortion. Funny how that works...
No, the kind of freedom you described does not exist. You are talking about freedom without limit, responsibility or consequences. You will find that such a dream has nothing to do with real freedom.
Sorry, the definition of freedom doesn't refer me to your freedom with limits. Why dont you just admit it, freedom means we get to do what you tell us.
. Nice job breaking it hero.
. I'm going to have to go cold turkey. 
