“should such a drug be allowed to be distributed?” Yes, that would make the responsibility for the consequences of taking the drug ENTIRELY lie with the person who made the CHOICE to take the drug. This is obvious when you think about it.

“Is it just the creature that is to blame” Yes, because the rational human being who became that creature made the choice to do so, and so is responsible for the consequences of that choice.

Many people die in drunk driving accidents. Is this the fault of beer brewers? No. Is this the fault of car manufacturers? No. Is this the fault of people who choose to drive while they are alcohol-impaired? Yes.

The fact that drugs which alter your behaviour exist is meaningless and irrelevant, because each individual has the choice of whether to take them for the first time. (Of course, the state forcing children to take psychotropic drugs against their will is another matter altogether).

Legalization of all drugs is not as simple a libertarian principle as some try to make it.

Such drugs exist.

Where in your ultimate solution does it say to lock up your neighbor, take his home, and ruin his life, for being an addict? You think THAT is a better solution? How about: open your eyes, and if your neighbor is addicted, help him, don’t destroy him. You need to work a lot harder on your “personal moral formation” if you are still rooting for this insipid “War” on Some Drugs.

Earlier you cited a concern of government or corporate abuse of control of legal drugs. A solution to this would be: advertising is illegal, as well as some limitation on patents/pricing. For example we’d want to stop a company from flooding the market with a cheap wonder drug, then yanking the prices up after everyone is addicted. Well they wouldn’t be able to do that if another company could make it for cheap.

If there is legalization, I would still like selling of drugs to be illegal. Take the profit motive away from dealers, stop it from spreading due to greed. I suppose maybe that is called decriminalization?

I think there is a middle ground solution in all this.

Certainly, there is a strong case to be made for real parenting, but showing that you’re bigger and stronger than your child, and that your might makes right, is not it. Why would anyone want to teach their child that the way to get what you want from people is to bully them into submission? The only people who would choose to do that to a child are people who were themselves victims of similar abuse.

Consider that being a child does not mean that you do not have rights. If an adult was subjected to the treatment described in that deplorable article (the girl was not fed, and was not allowed to urinate, because her mother decided to assert her authority) it would be clear that this torture was wrong. Instead, people have this idea that children need to be endlessly punished in order to trick them into being good. Children _want_ to be good, but they rely on their parents for direction in finding their way. The “Tiger Mother” has taught her children that the only way to be good is to be a slave to her own selfish whims. It’s sick.

The Qing Dynasty fell because of recreational drug use and government drug policy failure. The Qing did not address the addict and the opium house but tried to control importation. This was an expensive and futile effort. Not only did millions become addicted, the continued importation of opium led to a persistent and ultimately disastrous trade imbalance, the debasement of the Chinese currency, contributed to a declining economy, and eventually to the Chinese Revolution. Don’t think for a moment that the ChiCom Dynasty doesn’t remember the consequences of 19th Century British drug aggression in formulating their present domestic and foreign policies.

Confidence in the libertarian argument for individual choice should be shaken by this Chinese example.

The Qing had no social safety net, save a token one for ‘bannermen’, descendants of the original victorious Manchu Army.

Any rational individual could see the consequences of smoking opium in the emaciated corpses of addicts lying in the gutters, but nonetheless millions of Chinese exercised their individual liberty and chose to smoke opium, become economically incapacitated, go through all their assets, and die miserably of starvation in the street.

Our leadership must not allow the United States to take the same path to national dependence, impoverishment, and social collapse. The biggest challenge to restoring American greatness and vision is our devalued leisure, entertainment, and self-indulgent culture.

The ultimate solution lies in personal moral formation, i.e. wise, responsible, and dedicated parenting. Parents cannot abandon their responsibility to guide children to adulthood. They must resist the popular mythologies of that wise modern parenting allows children to experiment, discover for themselves, and to enjoy an extended childhood of freedom from responsibility and self-esteem.

So completely wrong.

Human beings are short-lived creatures and childhood is even briefer. It must be, as it was in the centuries of Christian Europe before the Industrial Revolution, a period of intense preparation for responsible adulthood. Parenting failure produces psychological children inhabiting adult bodies with adult appetites, i.e. flower children.

It is somewhat ironic, but very timely, that the Chinese “Tiger Mother” is causing consternation among indulgent American parents by her personal example of responsible parenting. Two thumbs up to her, she got her kids prepared to be adults in a world full of adult decisions. Let’s get this society back on the right track by good parenting before we all go down in ruin.

Does the downfall of America due to drug abuse seem inconceivable? It once happened to another greatest nation in the world.

We must restore a culture of responsibility through our children. We really have no other alternative other than to follow the example of the Qing and go up in smoke.

Just like cars, homes, computers, etc. drugs are heterogeneic as are the preferences of the users of these products. Some individuals will be looking for the best high at the best price. Others may be more willing to pay more for a better drug, but only to an extent. And still others will enjoy the effects of a certain drug and pay almost any price to get it.

Legalizing only marijuana would likely decrease some users of meth, but not nearly as many as complete legalization. Will some people continue to use meth? Most likely, but the vast populace who would switch to other, safer drugs if they sold had an open market price.

I suppose if you get all your information about meth from TV, you’re a victim of selection bias. The functional meth user doesn’t make the news. Years ago when I was into drugs, I knew many many functional meth users.

Mark