DO NOT come at me with the obvious objection as though I haven’t thought about it. That’s just stupid. Of course I’ve thought about it, and dismissed it as either inconsistent with or irrelevant to a counter-argument.
That’s not — I say again, NOT — to say that Ragin’ Dave is stupid here, when he raises a seemingly valid counter to the call to cease drug prohibition, to whit: what about the costs of medical care for addicts? Is there not an unfair burden to be born by taxpayers should sanctions be lifted?
And, for that matter, since there’s no indication of it, and for all Dave is a regular reader of BTB — and thanks for that — there’s no reason to believe he writes in response to my earlier post.
Dave is considering from his perspective an aspect of reality. I merely differ in that I believe his perspective is flawed in two wises. First, as relates to reality-as-it-is-and-not-as-we-would-it, the costs of medical care for drug addicts already fall on taxpayers, so some extent. I see that, to the extent that the public covers these costs, to be a fault of the prohibition. I do not see, therefor, that the lifting of prohibition will change much.
Second, and I believe more important: we’re talking matters of principle, here. Of course it’s wrong that the costs of drug addicition should be born by the taxpayer. In fact, it’s wrong that taxpayers should subsidize medical care for anybody, so the righting of that wrong will take care of the other.
And, I guess, the overarching principle here is that arguing against the ending of one evil practice because another evil practice exists independent of the first is not a winning tactic.
Cross-posted at Eternity Road.