Yes, it's true. It's often when alcohol comes into play that things get ugly. Well, maybe the meth use should be prohibited then in places where alcohol is served.

Another alternative is that when people commit violent crimes under the influence of any substance, that this automatically leads to heavier sentences, just like it's the case when you're driving under the influence of something and cause an accident.

Such measures should prevent people from drunk driving.

Misinterpretation of me. I was thinking solely of recreational use.

Another argument for prohibition that is often used and seems to be used more and more these days, also in relation to alcohol and smoking, is that people who mess up their health are a burden to the economy because they're less productive economically.

This is probably true for some substances but definately not for others.

But besides this, the argument itself holds a very unpleasant view on society and man's place in it.
If we would argue like this, individual freedom is done with, because virtually every behaviour you can think of will have SOME effect on productivity.

If we allow employers and government to use this argument to interfere in the personal lives of people, then you'd be constantly taxed or otherwise hindered on everything that would diminish your productivity and you would not have a minute left to decide for yourself what you would want to do.

We would be reduced merely to machines with only the sole purpose to generate money for 'the economy'.

I know many people are atracted to that view on mankind, even some people who call themselves liberals. But it is an extremely sinister way of looking at society if you ask me, and i think many, many people would agree with that.

sounds orwellian.

Sometimes i think we're gradually moving towards an orwellian world. Maybe even a worse than orwellian world, since we're willingly allowing it to happen.

then why stop at drugs... fast food arguably puts a burden on the health care system too; why don't we control what people eat too?
in fact, let's try to control many aspects of choices people make which dip into taxpayer money.
let's just advocate one global government that tells you what to think, what to believe, and how to live.

p.s. - don't mistake libertarian ideology with liberalism. the two schools of thought are quite different

I think there's a good chance that this is gonna happen at some point.
In fact, it's already happening.

I'm not mistaking libertarian ideology with anything, but the economic utilitarianists themselves often like to pretent that they're realy very liberal. Look at the bush administration, using the words freedom to defend every measure against civil liberty's and labour rights. Actually reagan and thatcher already where as smart to hide their true intentions by using 'liberalism' as a shield.

liberal and conservative are catch words designed to divide people, not that unifying them would be of any use..people are still going to be suckered.
Liberal and conservative don't even carry the same connotation any more. If the Bush admin showed us anything, it was that neo-conservativism is much different (in a hypocritical way) than real conservativism from 50 years ago.
both liberals and conservatives want decisions made that would inevitably affect aspects of your private life, which is why libertarianism makes more sense.

I think the costs to a health care system from drug use would be lower when drugs are legal no? Less OD's etc.



Yes its an argument with no fine line. Where do you draw the line on healthy and unhealthy behavior? You can't really and be accurate. Everyone is different. Some people can eat fat smoke and drink for their whole life and have no ill health effects. You could never make such an argument fair. It also completely violates any notion of individual freedom and I can't stand when people make the argument. Its also why I think there should always be multiple options for health care. Public and private could compete. It someone doesn't want to pay for fatties heath surgery then he can get his private insurance. Its the only fair way.



Sentences are often lower because there is no "intent" so it can't be considered murder. At least in the U.S. most people get manslaughter for causing a death with drunk driving. I'm personally against drunk driving because I know people who died cause of it but I don't know the solution. It should certainly be illegal and there should be penalties but I don't know how harsh it should be, maybe should depend how drunk you actually are? If there is death or accident for sure harsh. But sometimes people are over the limit but clearly not impaired because blood alcohol level limits can be really low. But society also should provide easier options for getting people back and forth from the bar. I think bikes are a great way but some societies are so car based people think your weird if you walk or ride bike places. But thats just society bullshit.


But I don't entirely agree that someone who is on drugs should automatically get a harsher sentence then someone who is sober. If two guys rob a bank and one is on cocaine why does the one on cocaine deserve a harsher sentence then the other one? People should be charged with the crime of robbing the bank in that case.

The reason i mentioned harsh sentences is this: drugs are illegal now. If we argue for changing that, then the responsability for thinking of ever possible negative consequence of this rests on our shoulders: our opponents won't have to because they want things to stay the way they are.

A better example would have been the following: organised crime.
If drugs would become legal, then organised crime won't be gone in just a second. So..how would the cartels respond?
If we where the government and we would want to legalise drugs, then we would be obliged to anticipate on how narco-cartells could possibly respond to be prepared for what may come.

legalising drugs will have a positive effect on society's in the west and in south america. But it will also have a 'shock' effect. Many problems in society related to drugs have always been seen through the eyes of the prosecutor.(the teenage crackdealer, homeless adicts, etc) We will have to adapt a wholy new way of looking at them. And we should be doing that in advance.

That's the sort of thing proponents of legalisation would have to take into consideration if they want to have a good set of arguments.