War on drugs

Not dramatically. And yes, behavior that markedly increases the likelihood of someone getting hurt is a social problem. It's pretty much the social problem.

If you mean numerically, sure. But a lot more people use alcohol, so the relevant comparison would be a ratio, which I imagine would be a great deal higher with hard drugs.

I think the question there would be "Do you think the government should forbid people from sticking knives in their necks?" To which I would say: yeah, probably.

I'm perfectly familiar with the libertarian argument here, because I'm usually the one making it. But there are some very possible outcomes that it isn't accounting for here. For example, if heroin becomes cheap, demand for it will go up, and there will likely be a rise in the production of higher-quality heroin. And nothing about the nature of drug addiction suggests that addicts will be content with the off-brand stuff. Addicts chase greater and greater highs. Which means cost will become a factor again. Which means they're back to stealing and hurting people to support their habit.

Also, is this an empirical argument, or an axiomatic one? In other words, do you believe heroin should be legal because you think this will be the result, or do you believe it based on axiomatic beliefs about individual liberty, and would continue to support its legalization even if this were not true, and heroin continued to lead to violence after legalization?

Except most heroin users don't actually want to die: they want to stay alive and do heroin. So this isn't really a debate about whether or not people should be allowed to kill themselves (which is a difficult, complicated question). It's a debate about whether or not we should intervene when people who don't want to die are doing things to ensure that they will.

Let's just skip to the end: is there such a thing as mental illness? If so, is it ever justified to intervene in someone's affairs when they exhibit it?

I think you may have misread my post, because that's been one of the points I've been making.

Maybe I did, because now I'm confused.

"Highly addictive drugs are not actually affordable at any price, because they monopolize your life and need to be taken over and over."

Certain people have a biochemistry that makes alcohol for them to be a highly addictive drug. Yet it's still affordable and they can hold jobs. Until their liver gives out.

As Bill Hicks said funnily, "There's a war on drugs, and people on drugs, are winning! 'Honey, get me a beer, got a war to win!"

pakistan has a new strategy in it's never ending war of hatred against india . it is pushing drugs grown in afghanistan into the bordering states of india and people are getting addicted .

especially the states of punjab and haryana produce martial people who have fought against pakistan and stopped its army in the tracks in past wars . now these very two states are most addicted to drugs , thus weakening their martial abilities .

of course , pakistanis themselves are also suffering due to this policy of their government agencies sponsoring drugs , but the pakistani government does not care for its own people . as long as india is weakened , it does not matter how many pakistanis have to be sacrificed for that .