Or your children's problem in the case of one of my close relatives. Addicts do stupid stuff, they don't have any money because they spend all of it on drugs. They then aren't able to pay for things like rent, food, diapers, etc. and turn to family or theft (or both) to deal with that problem. They don't take care of themselves or their dependents because they don't care.

Is some of this exacerbated by the Drug War? Yes. But the other side of the coin is that making drugs cheaper/better and then decriminalizing it won't solve the problems (including depression and other mental issues) that cause people to turn to drugs in the first place. And then from there, they get addicted, drop out, and become a useless drain.

The Drug War doesn't really work, and it causes liberty issues. But it's not the recreational users that are the big social problem with drugs. Its generally the people who are already down in life and then turn into addicts and make things even worse for themselves. And legalizing them won't fix that either.

And then there's the whole issue with people who are in a terrible social/economic situation and sell/move drugs to make money but don't care about the product. They're not going to just start becoming model citizens working in the fancy new MJ dispensary because it's legal now. They'll find something else to do that's probably also illegal.

Of course addicts enjoy being high. I'd wager essentially all addicts enjoy the high, even if the joy is just the abatement of withdrawal symptoms.

And while some addicts don't want to "quit", that's true, a vanishingly small percentage enjoy being addicted. In my reading and limited first-hand discussions, even those addicts who don't want to quit still wish they could "cut back", e.g., wish they could just be a social drinker or only shoot heroin on the weekends. They hate the powerlessness they feel, hate the control the substance has over their lives.

Lastly, I don't have hard evidence to back this up, but I've never read/heard an addict cite the high price of their drug being the biggest reason to quit. The biggest reason they want to quit is typically either its impact on their health or its impact on their relationships (or career, which is basically a relationship). I'm not saying you're irrefutably wrong about this; it just doesn't match my anecdotal experiences.

The one thing all addicts share is an expert ability to obtain and use their substance. If it is physically possible to get their fix, they will find a way. Also, illegal drugs are often cheaper than legal ones, because regulatory compliance and taxes add more expense than operating in a black market. At least, that's the evidence coming out of states and countries that have recently legalized certain drugs.

Legal morphine is already extremely affordable, about $1/gram.

On the one hand, I believe an addict will find a way to get their drug if they really want. On the other, a huge part of beating the addiction and maintaining it is to avoid situations where you know you'll be tempted to relapse.

As a personal example, I've struggled with cigarette smoking at times in my life, and it is undeniably harder (for me) to stay on the wagon when I can pick up tobacco on almost any corner, any gas station, convenience store, most pharmacies and grocers, etc. It's just everywhere.

Anyway, I'm just saying that I agree with most of that point – despite my being generally pro-legalization, pro-treatment vs incarceration. Honestly, if we as a society get to the point where an adult can pick up a bump of cocaine at every gas station, I think that will be a bad outcome. Accessibility doesn't necessarily mean prevalent and socially encouraged/acceptable, but it certainly could head us down that road – which is dangerous, at least for opiates/opioids.

And you make a good point about morphine. I guess it's because morphine's considered medicine and not a "decriminalized/legalized recreational drug", which are being subjected to higher "sin taxes".

Implicit in proper pricing is that it'd be legal and easy to use.

Which issues are you thinking about?

>opiates have little side effects outside of respiration depression and constipation

Maybe with proper dosage and medical supervision, maybe. But I think the biggest side effects of regular opiate abuse are addiction and a loss of productivity. I don't think those effects can be discounted. The biggest "waking" factor I have heard ex-junkies state as why they wanted to sober up were "I was killing my family", "I was killing myself", and "it was only a matter of time before it killed me or I killed someone for it".

That said, clean equipment certainly helps solve some of the issues, as infections are extremely common with intravenous users.

>I killed someone for it

I can't see how this is anything but a pricing/accessibility issue. Otherwise there's just no incentive -- it's about as expensive a habit as alcohol if bought legally.

I hope people don't argue that drugs should be legalized because it's a personal life choice that doesn't affect anyone else, and then turn around and argue that more support for addicts is needed because their personal issues do affect others.

I know your comment doesn't have this logical contradiction, but I wanted to point this out in case any readers read your comment and silently nod their heads in agreement despite them also holding onto an obviously contradictory opinion.

Myself on the other hand, I believe in my own ability to be fair in judgement, to straddle that difficult line between compassion and personal responsibility. I believe it IS possible to leave someone bleeding in the street because they chose to endanger themself, their family, their community, and the quality of life of everyone on this planet.

That's a position that will strike many as arrogant, entitled, and downright wrong. I can understand that position, and still choose to disagree with it. As an ideal, I hold personal responsibility in the highest regard, while still understanding that life hits you hard sometimes in ways you cant possible predict.

When you take a black and white perspective like this, it's evident you don't have any intention of understanding your fellow man's position. In this way, you yourself are proving logically inconsistent. You have deemed yourself intelligent enough to judge me as being wrong, in my decision to judge others?

So let me get this straight, I am wrong because I believe myself intelligent, rational, thoughtful, and considerate enough, to pass fair judgment on to others. Yet you are not wrong for your rational and thoughtful analysis and subsequent judgment of my belief? That's not just logically inconsistent, it's hypocritical.

Regarding your example:

Again, things are not as black and white as you would like them to be. Each scenario takes a requires a multitude of factors be considered.

Yes, the driver chose to drive in bad weather, which certainly put themselves at risk. I tend to have no problem helping people, who just hurt themselves. But what about the other drivers? Did he put them at risk too? Sure, but those drivers implicitly took the same risk, when they chose to driver in bad weather.

There's an additional consideration, that of the acceptability of someone's behavior. Driving is a socially accepted practice, and one that is sometimes a necessary task. I can extend compassion for them, by assuming the needed to engage in this socially accepted practice of driving, despite the risks.

How in the world do you arrive at that conclusion? Personally, I can't imagine anything being further from the truth...

There are a lot of things outside of ones control in life, and while you can try to shape the direction in your life with personal choice, not everyone starts from the same spot, not all situations are the same, and not all risks pay off.

TBH, that sounds like a complete caricature of a Libertarian thinker from where I'm sitting. Maybe there are people like that out there, and maybe some of them self-identify as Libertarians (or libertarians) but there's nothing inherent in the Libertarian world-view that would lead to such a position.

There are a lot of things outside of ones control in life, and while you can try to shape the direction in your life with personal choice, not everyone starts from the same spot, not all situations are the same, and not all risks pay off.

That's absolutely true, and of the Libertarians I know, I don't think I know a single one who would contest that.

Source: am a Libertarian.

As a class of people, there is only one factor that ties all of them together under a single ideological umbrella. By all other measures, their opinions can vary wildly.

The capital-L Libertarians, otherwise known as the members of the Libertarian Party, are just the tip of the small-l libertarian iceberg. For those who have chosen to abandon political participation and evangelism, you may never even realize they are libertarian at all.

There are some godawful douchebag libertarians. There are criminal fraud libertarians. And there are also libertarians that are outwardly indistinguishable from everybody else, aside from little things like laughing at something when a joke was not intended.

Do you remember Dennis, the 37-year-old not-an-old-woman from Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail? Do you recall how he was attempting to explain the anarcho-syndicalist commune to King Arthur? Anarcho-syndicalists are a type of libertarian. Just as Arthur dismissed him as completely useless, modern mainstream politics ignores and marginalizes most libertarian groups. And they do it to each other, as well. No one is better at denouncing a particular type of libertarianism than another type of libertarian.

I would guess that most of those people are not terribly well educated in the basis of Libertarian thought. That's a pretty naive interpretation of it anyway.

Anyway, I'd love to continue this conversation, but it's probably veering close to (or into) "off topic" territory, so I'll just drop this here.