>>4
i don't want to have to protect myself, even if you ask a libertarian they'll tell you that the ONLY purpose of the state is protecting it's citizens from harm (therefore the nick-name "night watcher state" to minimal-states such as those suggested by libertarians).
Yes, if the US legalized drugs alot more people would be out of prison, but there are several implications to it.
The US isn't the only country in the world, and most of the rest of the world doesn't really like drugs that much, so unless america could produce their own supply of drugs, they'd have to import it illegally or at least under heavy critique from other countries. If the US was to produce everything nationally, it would have to be heavily subsidized or there would quickly appear a black market undercutting the public market with drugs smuggled from low-cost countries.
You didn't start doing drugs, you're pretty smart, alot of people aren't as smart as you, and a large amount of drugs are addictive, thus there is alot of profit for companies to get people to do drugs, these companies will lobby/advertise in favor for people doing crack.
Now that's all right, it's the free market, problem for society is that alot of drug users isn't a desireable goal. Drugs generally affect the brain in a negative way, some of them increase risks of psychotic behaviour, others kill braincells, others simply makes brain cells dormant. I'm not talking about "ohh those nasty impure drugs mixed up with rat poison to make more pills", but the real, actual, pure drugs. Alot of other things affect the brain too and they aren't banned, chocolate, beer, cigarettes, coffee, tea. But the main reason for this is the short period of affect, and the fact that most of them, even if taken excessively, will 'only' cause physical harm to the user it self. There are of course divergences, drunk drivers, barfights, etc. but you rarely see someone sit in the street begging for money so he can get "just one more cup of coffee man, i just need one more! i gotta have it to make it through the day man!"
if gun control only disarms the lawful, it is due to inefficiency in the disarming/guntrol of guns, not due to gun control being evil. I'm not saying it should be allowed to have guns at all, or that a gun control program will reduce murder rates bombastically. I am, however, saying that i would prefer to live in a society where i wouldn't need to get a gun because i was afraid of other people with guns. I'd much rather not have a gun and be fairly sure that a robber etc. didn't have a gun either. But it is fairly unrealistic for it to ever be like that with the amount of guns in circulation, and with peoples love for guns/fear of not having them.