Guns and drugs

Sure, I get that you're talking about a government "solution" and I agree that your solution would be better than what we have now. I also agree that sure neither your idea nor mine would fly in today's environment. I just wanted to clarify that my preferred solution is one that omits the primary negative externality that yours requires; Government. Left to their own devices some people will use substances that will ruin their lives but government intervention intended to "save" those poor souls, results in a drug war, cartels, black markets and millions of people dead or incarcerated.

 

To say nothing of the fact that, when large numbers of individuals start dying off because government is not intervening to save them, and word of said deaths make it to the media, the public will invariably demand the government do something to save them in response.

Everyone desires freedom to do whatever they please, however they please, until they realize just how scary that freedom is to them. Then suddenly they want government control again because they cannot act responsibly on their own.

 

I fully agree that many won't change, regardless of options. I also agree that it's not possible to change or even help people who refuse to do for themselves, and I agree that we should be able to recognize that and step back. There's a time and place where help is helpful- and the same where it's harmful. Generally speaking, governments can't tell the difference, the same goes for many people.

 

Regulation is just a partial ban. We say heroine is banned, but doctors can still prescribe it. Technically speaking, nothing is banbed, because the govt can own whatever it wants. So lets stop splitting grammatical hairs and get back to the issue:

The more we restrict guns, the more they will be produced/procured illegally, just like drugs, the more powerful the illicit markets that deal in them will become, just like with drugs, and the more corrupt the agencies authorized to enforce them will become, just like drugs.

Can you provide an argument as to why the above statement is not/will not be true?

 

Why do you think there would be some great die off as compared to what is taking place now? Government does a pretty bad job of keeping people from doing drugs or dying from them now. If the drugs weren't illegal, sellers would have to maintain quality and consistency, which would reduce the risk of dying from drug use. Additionally, it would be easier for addicts to get treatment without risking incarceration and there would be less gang violence, so, no great die off.

I'm entirely in favor of any snowflake that wants to be supervised and restricted by a nanny/nanny state to have that option. In the establishment of a true free market I might even offer that as a private service and I expect my "nanny state" service would be far superior to the government version.