Good Article @sterlinluxan . A small clarification because The Devil hides in the details:
Drugs are Illegal because most people are afraid of them.
They are afraid because they don't know about them.
People that are afraid of drugs vote for policies that prohibit them.
It is wrong to say that "Goverments prohibit drugs". The term, like I said in my pevious critique is too generic. Many citizens that don't know about drugs vote through Goverment to prohibit drugs. They would do the same in an an-cap society for any subject from pedophelia to caging torture.
A better way to see this is to examine how the situation is handled in scientific research. Due to public opinion, most psychedelic drug research cannot get any funding. This is not because of "The Goverment" but because companies and colleges that do not want to see their reputation go to shit. It creates an endless circle of superstition and fear. No one is ready to take the first step.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/end-the-ban-on-psychoactive-drug-research/
You make an interesting point. Technically, this is all about people. I will agree with that 110%. Now, the core reason people hold these fears and misunderstandings is due to a government-designed system of education which teaches them improperly. Back to what you said - this government-designed education is still created by people. It's always an endless circle.
You cannot change the government without educating people, and it's dificult to educate people who've recieved 15 years of indoctrination. When someone has built their perspective of the world on biased beliefs and bullshit opinions handed down from others who are know-nothing followers, it becomes very difficult to gain any real ground in convincing them otherwise. When push comes to shove, even if 60% of the population are pro-psychedelic, it's the government who seems to have the final say - at least from a legislative position.
I agree with Sterlin's motive here and I also agree with your perspective. I enjoy conversing these issues and philosophies.
I like to add, that I cannot agree - at least in certain company - that "government prohibits drugs" is something wrong to say or too generic. Technically they do, regardless of the fact that the government is just a group of people. I say this because some people who are new cannot understand the concepts without first identifying a perpetrator. After some deeper education, yes. But nobody simply jumps in that deep. For example, with that argument, it's easy for me to say "discussing anarchism is too generic because by doing so, we're lending the idea that government is valid, and true anarchists wouldn't even discuss the idea of having rulers." Now, that's totally valid from a certain perspective, but it's a bit too deep when people are just learning the concepts of not having a ruler. People with no experience aren't going to randomly dive into examining the scientific research of the morality of psychedelics - they first need cause. Since most people identify with government as a core cause for law, rather than people, I think there's a fine line there. Let them blame the government, it's a stepping stone in the right direction.
I do respect both of your opinions and perspective for various reason, just to make that clear. I also thank you both for your contributions here and for putting your mind into your work.
It's true that in a voluntary society there would be some mechanism that stops things like pedophilia (well, pedophilia that gets acted on), but that's because it has a victim. If a voluntary society restricted you from doing something that had no victim, then it's not a voluntary society.
It's chicken/egg, which is maybe what you're getting at. Being illegal is part of why it hurts their reputation. And it's also part of why people can so stubbornly assume it's big bad scary stuff (it's hard to accept the government would do this for no reason).
When someone criticizes the war on drugs, they're not hyper-focused on state actors and dismissing that the attitude of ordinary people might contribute to it. They're trying to help change that attitude.