> I'm quite libertarian in a lot of my views, but this particular one on lax drug controls I've never really been able to buy into.
Ok, I'll bite ;)
Let's agree that the "liberal" approach is harm-reduction -- safe injection sites, needle exchanges, free filters, test sites, community disease screening, etc.
In places where this has been tried (see: SF), it seems to provide some relief to people on the ground, but it's done nothing to address in the inflow of addicts against ever more dangerous supply.
What if the correct liberal position was actually "free pain pills for anyone that needs them, with compassion for all users", and what we think of as "liberal" policies even in SF are actually appeasement of a puritanical system?
That would make the libertarian position "you can't be giving out free pills with government money, make them buy them when they need them like the rest of us" and the world would return to order.
The right-wing position would remain "the government should use force to prevent people from doing immoral things".
As for the addicts, they will now be using a safer route of administration with controlled dosing and not be economically hindered.
As for the cartels, they will no longer find money in the drug trade.
For a while I thought I understood the dynamics of how things got the way they are, but it seems like everyone else has forgotten, so maybe we could try a new approach soon.