Sorry, I mistook what you said back then.
My intution tells me that legalizing hard drugs is wrong. But if you analyze the problem you realize that just like legalizing and taxing drugs forbidding them drugs creates artifical scarcity. The difference is that the mob profits under the current regime whereas everybody would gain in a 'legalize and tax' system. This very public income can be partly used to alleviate the negative effects of hard drugs.
Then again this is just the economic analysis of the problem, the arguments of a Buchanan-type conservative against such a libertarian/liberal drugy policy are sound in my opinion.
I feel a bit uneasy with liberalism/libertarianism, with merely thinking economically because of this:
If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function.
Sure, it's quite polemic but I think that this type of conservatives have a point. A society isn't merely bound together by explicit, legal rules, the implicit rules are at least as important.
Let me make an example.Sometimes there are quite strange political marriages. Over here we have publicly-financed child care.
Now this sounds socialist, the GDR had such a system. But while it is of course economical non-sense to subsidize household work the goal is to increase the female employment ratio.
So a socialist policy is used for marketization (sounds similar to the bail-out, doesn't it?). Left-liberals play along because it sounds so egalitarian that more women work and conservatives play along because they are market fetishists ... and who is obviously missing in the equation are old-school conservatives who argue for family. I mean, gee, that was my gut reaction to this nonsense. Don't mess with family, children should stay at home at least for the first three years or so.