dope was legal here in the US until 1914, no problems of the nature that we now have, not even close. Some were addicted to morphine and laudanum, but they caused little trouble. Millions of us Libertarians want all dope legalized, not just pot, and most of us don't use dope. I never have. I do'nt and never did drink (or use tobacco) either. Doing such things is just stupid.
Of course there are no problems because there is no black market. When there is a black market for drugs there is always going to be a violent criminal network looking to control the market and THAT breeds crime and violence. When drugs are legal they become nothing more than a product just like any other product that is legal - drugs would become no different from eggs or milk. Our government uses drugs as a means to create a more authoritarian state, a reason to tax and a reason to fine. If people really want less crime then legalize drugs, because it's not the drug users committing all these violent crimes its the drug dealers and suppliers such as street gangs and cartels who are responsible for the violence. Of course the ding bats believe that if drugs were legal everyone would just run out and get high and the question I counter with that is - would you? Sober people just aren't going to run out and start doing drugs just because they're legal. Of course every time someone makes an argument for legalizing drugs the opposition automatically assumes the person making the arguement wants to use drugs themselves (which is a massive fallacy) therefore the issue is rarely even discussed, debated or even considered in the mainstream.
The issue from a libertarian perspective is that government is restricted to powers enumerated by the Constitution. In other words, unless the authority to regulate something is specifically given the government by its Constitution, then that power does not exist. The government was never given the power to tell people what they may or may not do with their bodies. They do however have the power to regulate trade and can place levy's or taxes on any item which falls under that domain.
That would be the federal government. The individual State governments are constrained by their own respective Constitutions, which tend to give much more latitude over what type of laws can be passed. If you read your State Constitution, you will probably notice it does not grant any specific Powers like the U.S. Constitution. It just says "The Power to make law is vested in the Legislative...". Theoretically, under the U.S. Constitution an ordinary law does not by itself give the government the right to carry it out. The actual lawful Power to execute that law falls under one of the other enumerated Powers. This is not the case with the State Constitutions. We can argue the States should not be passing all these laws, but whether they have the legal right to make these laws is not in doubt. What is unconstitutional for the federal government is not unconstitutional for your State government. The confusion arises because in recent decades the U.S. Supreme Court has been applying the Bill of Rights to the State governments, which was never originally intended.
The Bill of Rights most certainly does apply to State Governments. The States cannot pass any law which contradicts the Federal Constitution. If a State passes a law that contradicts the Freedom of Speech for example, the Federal Government is obliged to step in and protect the Citizens rights.... Of course we see that is not the case in reality because States violate the Second Amendment with impunity and the Federal Government does nothing.
Ah...just regulating a right does not thereby make it a privilege. It might reasonably argued that that's all any law is, that is, the regulation of a right
Right. TO. PRIVACY. It extends to hoovering out a fetus therefore it extends to smoking dope or shooting dope or snorting dope etc. If I can kill my own get I can smoke a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing doobie.
