Quote:
We can make it more difficult for people to obtain substances that will cause them to act in irrational and dangerous ways.


You see, I just can't accept this argument because I hold people to a higher standard of behavior. I don't think that the substances "cause" them to act in dangerous ways. I think that people act in irrational and dangerous ways, and then blame the substances for their behavior.

This is akin to "blaming the gun". Well, to quote an old cliche, I think it is absolutely true that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Our society blames the gun, or the drug, or whatever. In doing so, we fail to hold people accountable as responsible moral agents. It isn't the person's fault, it's the drug's fault. I think this is hogwash, because the decison to use the drug is voluntary. Therefore people can be held accountable for their actions while under the influence of the drug. Can be and should be. The drug is not the point. Selfish, negligent and harmful (to others) behavior is the issue.

If we took your argument to its logical conclusion, we wouldn't allow people to buy gasoline, guns of any kind, and a whole host of other products that "might" be used to harm other people. The problem is, that's not the way a free society works. A free society works by entrusting the public with potentially dangerous objects, but requiring that they not be used to endanger or harm others. When people endanger or harm others, we must deal with that severely. Not only is that not how a free society functions, it is simply impossible to remove all the ways that people can hurt each other.

Your post has a built-in contradiction, you say:
Quote:
it was the irresponsible use of mind altering drugs that caused the problem.


Well, if that's correct, then the issue is not the drugs, or the availability of drugs. I agree with you 100%, by the way. The issue is that people behaved irresponsibly and made negligent and harmful choices. This is the fundamental issue. That is also way you can't prevent it from happening, because people can make those decisions that are harmful to others in millions of ways: driving recklessly, locking fire escape doors, misusing constuction equipment, dumping chemicals, whatever. It is *impossible* to remove the *opportunity* to harm other people. We shouldn't try, because we are simply deluding ourselves and giving ourselves the illusion of security. Instead, we should accept that life is fundamentally insecure. There are dangerous things in the world and people MUST be entrusted with those dangerous things in order to have a functioning society. The way to do that is to hold people accountable for treating others negligently or harmfully.

Of course, getting high and stepping into a car is a BAD THING. Sitting at home alone and getting high is a GOOD THING, as far as many people are concerned (funny I have such strong opinions because I don't even do this personally). A free society is based on the notion that we do not have the right to interfere with the second activity, only the first.

Arguments based on the notion that the second activity (getting high alone at home) harms others because of the expense to the medical or welfare system are not well reasoned. In a true free society, one should be able to opt out of these programs. We are not given this option.

Quote:
Correct. I believe that man is inherintly flawed, meaning my view of man's nature is quite low.


This is the fundamental justification for tyranny.

You see, I think you believe more than that. I think that you believe that man's nature is quite low, and therefore they can not be entrusted to determine what is best for themselves. You seem to believe that you must do that, using the force of police and the mechanism of politics.

In a free society, people are left to determine for themselves what is a GOOD THING, and act on it however they choose -- with only a single limitation: they must not endager or harm others while doing so.

Even if you are right, and man is inherently immoral, in a free society that is nobody's business but his own. And if that is true, by the way, where do these laws come from? They are developed by men. How can an "inherintly flawed" man come up with these moral rules?

Well, he can't. So we need to leave that to the individual -- as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

Quote:
There are plenty of things that I think should be legal even though I personally hold them to be wrong and immoral.


Can we agree, idealogically, that sitting at home alone and getting drunk is one of these things? If we can, how about getting high with other substances? How are these two things ANY different, from a moral and idealogical point of view?

Jim