[manicbovine]

> That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators.

I think you're missing a fine point here. You've already said that contaminated meat is criminal, presumably because it's very dangerous. Are bath salts very dangerous? Meth? Low quality meth with contaminants?

How should we permit the sale of narcotics while disallowing poisons? I think that a lot of people can answer that, but how can we do this in a reasonable way? Let's think it through... I don't have time to keep track of which things are safe. I'd probably rely on some organization to help me decide. It's reasonable for me to rely on the government because they're democratically accountable to me. In that system, I'd prefer them to really err on the side of caution. Erring on the side of caution, is heroin poison?

Do you want to live in a world where buying a simple OTC sleep pill at Walgreen's exposes you to the risk of ingesting heroin or some other decidedly narcotic substance?

I really support the legalization of certain drugs, but I'm advocating for a per substance approach. (Actually, I'm saying that it's functionally impossible to just "legalize drugs".)

[ferdo]

> Do you want to live in a world where buying a simple OTC sleep pill at Walgreen's exposes you to the risk of ingesting heroin or some other decidedly narcotic substance?

I'd prefer to live in a world where I could choose to use any medicine I wish to use.

It's the liberty/security thing all over again. I prefer the insecurity of liberty to the security of having an overseer. My opinion has always been in the minority through all of history, btw.

[manicbovine]

Replace the words "drug" and "medicine" by "chemical" or "bioactive substance". You see, that's what we must talk about if we talk about legalizing "drugs". One person's drug or medicine is another's poison (Datura is a good example, interesting for discussion because it's legal to own as a plant). If you're fine with criminalizing the sale of contaminated meat, then you are implicitly relying on the government to protect against certain bioactive substances. You're clearly willing to make the security/liberty sacrifice, as are most reasonable people.

EDIT: You'd better serve your interests by advocating for a well-regulated narcotics market with proper safety controls and the distinct possibility that certain substances will just have to be illegal. That's much sounder than saying "legalize drugs because I prefer liberty over safety, except sometimes".

[ferdo]

> If you're fine with criminalizing the sale of contaminated meat

I'm fine with criminalizing any form of fraud. Selling contaminated meat as good meat is fraud. If someone sold aspirin with heroin in it but didn't label it as such, they'd be guilty of fraud also.

> You'd better serve your interests

If my interests aren't in line with my principles, that would make me more of a hypocrite than we're already forced to be at times.