In an Objectivist society, the responsiblilty of government is to protect citizens from initiation of force. Selling and consuming drugs do not constitute an initiation of force. Therefore, government has no right to prohibit the sale and use of drugs. However, a person is morally and legally responsible for all actions he or she performs while under the influence of drugs, the same as when under the influence of alcohol.

The rub of reality being that groups larger than 1 never agree 100% on everything.

Objectivism recognizes that reality, and therefore the target group is always 1. Objectivists are free to group in larger numbers for things they agree on, like everyone else. But always based on 1, not many.

I agree with you Rich. This site has a chart showing that alcohol consumption from 1850 to 1995 as fairly stable except for the prohibition years. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publication...

I suspect that drug usage would look the same after legalization.

+1 for truth

Anarchists, Libertarians, etc. all would like an ideal world (everyone following their ideology), so the Gulchers aren't unique. Opposing views are so bothersome. I picked Communism at random, as all Utopian visions would work, if everyone agreed to live by the rules. Socrates, as documented by his student, Plato, first described the elements of an ideal communal state (nothing like the Communism we've come to know and detest)

Are you SERIOUS? You would favor communism! I lost the rest of your comment after that. I consider ideal to be the Gulch. Guess I should've been more clear.

If we were speaking purely in the ideal, I'd favor Communism, but we know how that goes. The best approach is to make medical use of drugs legal (you can make a case for cocaine and heroin, surprisingly), requiring a prescription for use to keep the dose manageable. Unlicensed sales, keep illegal. Offer free rehab for users, and stiff jail time for dealers.

Some drugs should be kept out of the legal market (meth, LSD, PCP, for starters), so a more focused "war on drugs" will still be needed.

Again with the comparisons with small countries. The Netherlands population is less than one twentieth of the U.S., and they don't have a narco-terrorist state (Mexico) on their border. The cartels are thriving in Colorado, underpricing the legal marijuana, and are beginning to buy out the licensed dealers (taking a note from the Mafia to become "legit").

We are feeding addicts habits right now, as they are designated disabled and receive benefits. I say put whatever you want in your body, as WilliamShipley said, but I will not pay for your problems. I'm speaking ideal, of course.

It could be one powerful first step toward encouraging all people to be adults and take responsibility for themselves.

War on poverty?...More poverty.

War on drugs?...you know the rest. Frankly, I don't take any drugs - just aspirin. But, more and more, I find myself in favor of this kind of thing. Why? Because if somebody wants to take a drug they'll take a drug. America puts more people in prison, per capita, than anybody and much of that is drug related. I, believe it or not, am not convinced drug use will go up with legalization.

The only real problem I have is our penchant to take from the producers and give to the moochers. That won't work out really well with this. If we were willing to let the weak blow themselves out while not emptying our wallets to prop them up I see a lot of promise here. I also personally know several people who self-medicate with weed, vs. prescription psych meds...and they are much better off for it. Make no mistake, big pharma absolutely hates that. And THAT is the only reason the Feds (with Stoner O at the helm) are standing fast on this Federal ban.

I was thinking more about alcohol. It's regulated but we have a huge problem with addiction. Not sure how bad the problem would be if all drugs were legalized.

It's more of a guess. The war on drugs has been a failure in my opinion. We need to try something else and I think the possible tax revenue will lead to legalization.

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Nethe...

regulated? like gambling? ask Illinois winners if that's a great idea

Three times as many people die from drug overdose than from firearms, yet we're encouraged to decriminalize drugs, making them more available, and criminalize gun ownership. Of course most of the firearm deaths are a result of drug gang conflict.

Would it? I wonder. Do you know any statistics? I am all in for decriminalization, maybe even deregulation.

I'm sorry, I simply an't see any justification for telling people what substances they can and can't put into their own body.

Would more people become addicted if it was legal? Maybe maybe not, but I'm not sure it's our business. It's certainly harder to imagine a worse result than the one we currently live with.

I have often wondered what would happen if all drugs were legal but regulated. It would eliminate a lot of the violence we see now but would most likely replace it with more addicts walking the streets.

I have been waiting for more States to legalize marijuana and possibly prostitution. I know in Pennsylvania the State pension fund is a mess. The politicos are running out of legitimate businesses to tax so I expect them to start seeing it as a revenue stream at some point.