I note that Bruce Anderson wants to legalise drugs. The usual arguments: the war on them has failed, and we could have all sorts of safeguards if we legalised them (I'm reminded of the New Labour stock phrase, "make sure").
Then the commenters weigh in: hey, just look at the damage done by alcohol and tobacco. They skate over the fact that the damage with A&T occurs despite all the ostensible safeguards.
Besides, the war on every crime has failed. Except possibly body-snatching.
Back in 2009, I reproduced an article by a doctor who really knows about drugs and alcohol, and addiction, and who is far from sure that legalisation would increase our liberty. I was even promised a reply / rebuttal by "Charon QC", who I'm sorry to say (he's a courteous man and argues fairly) never got around to it.
So here's the challenge: don't answer me - answer Anthony Daniels' arguments. Here they are, yet again.
Or at least explain the real agenda. Because I've yet to be convinced decriminalization would (taking all effects into account) save money, cause less inconvenience or improve health or productivity. We might like to think so, but it's funny how reality differs from our expectations.
Will somebody on the libertarian side please, finally, take the debate seriously?