I don't agree. The point of anti-drug laws is to control people's behavior, specifically to stop individuals from engaging in specific behavior, rather than the protection of individual rights.
I disagree, for the reasons stated previously. Laws against drug abuse are designed to protect individual rights by controlling potentially dangerous behavior. But accepting for the sake of argument your premise, let's continue.
So I would say the argument that the laws don't actually stop anyone is a valid point.
Well, in the first place, laws against drug abuse stopped me. Had drugs been legal in my school days, I would have tried them. So to say that "the laws don't actually stop anyone" is inaccurate, and I think highly inaccurate at that. But I'll assume that you meant that figuratively instead of literally and critique the statement on that basis. If your statement is correct - and it may well be - why does the same statement not apply to laws intended to protect rights? That is, why would the statement "So I would say the argument that the laws don't actually
protect anyone is a valid point" not be just as accurate? Again, to be clear, I am not engaged in the argument of whether laws are intended to protect rights or control behaviors (yet), but very specifically whether a particular line of reasoning is consistent.
The law itself may be inefficient and a wholly impractical way of addressing the issue of drugs in our society. As the man said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Yes, I know some might argue that anti-drug laws keep drug abuse from being a rampant problem in our society, but again, I point to Prohibition. It was repealed, and the U.S. has not become a nation of sots. Nor was it before Prohibition. Before we had all these drug laws, the U.S. was not a nation of abusive druggies. There is little reason to believe we would become so if the drug laws were repealed.
I have heard that argument several times, but I do not think it is entirely accurate. In fact, alcohol IS rampant in this country. Drunk driving causes untold suffering and many lives, careers, and familes are lost over drinking. We are not a nation of drunks, but we are a nation with a drinking problem. Repealing anti-drug laws would, by its nature, cause an increase of the types of irresponsible behaviors associated with drug abuse. A more effective argument would be that the decrease in the criminal activity associated with ILLEGAL drug traffic would more than offset any increase in directly drug-related ills. But that would not go to the effectiveness of laws. It goes rather to the unintentional consequences thereof.
Your basic argument is that laws should be for the protection of rights, not for the control of behavior. I say, whether a law is effective in doing either of those things is not a reason for establishing or repealing it. You are suggesting, by your arguments - if I understand them correctly - that if a law is meant to protect rights then the effectiveness of that law is irrelevent. But if a law is meant to control behavior then the effectiveness IS an issue. That makes the supposition - which I believe to be incorrect - that the method of protecting rights does not involve the control of behavior. I would like to see an example of this situation, because I do not think one exists. Regardless, as I begin to evolve in my understanding of your point, I guess it means that you think the measure of a law intended to change behavior is whether it does in fact do so. By contrast, the measure of a law intended to protect rights is NOT whether it controls a behavior. But I do not think that is a valid construct. The analogous measure of a law designed to protect rights is whether or not it does in fact protect rights. In a nutshell, whatever your perspective, the measure of any law is whether it does what it is intended to do, and there is no law that does what it is intended to do. Whether laws against murder are intended to stop killers from killing or protect a victim's right to life, they do neither. Therefore I repeat (with clarification) my assertion: It is illogical to conclude that one law should be repealed (or not established) because it is ineffective in its intent and that another law should not be repealed (or not established) on the same basis. If you object to laws against drugs because they are behavior-oriented and support laws against murder because they are (in your opinion) rights-oriented, THAT OBJECTION is a different argument from whether either law is effective. The sum and gist of my argument is that whether or not a law is completely successful is not a reason to pass or repeal it.
To the issue of whether laws are intended to control behavior or protect rights, which I WILL tackle, though I share your fatigue, I say this. Laws are neither soley intended to protect rights nor to control behavior. There are elements of each in all laws. For example, I have a right to my property. The law should protect that right. But if I make a law to protect a person from having his property stolen, the effect of that law is brought to bear ONLY on a person whose BEHAVIOR violates that law. If I make it illegal to steal, the BEHAVIOR of stealing is punished. That protects the rights of others to their property by controlling the BEHAVIOR of the potential thief. If I look at it from a prevention perspective and make failure to properly secure property (e.g. not locking your car) a crime, then the BEHAVIOR of the victim of the theft becomes the thing we need to change. (The unfortunate consequence would be a double-punishment for the victim.) The same goes for any law I can think of. Laws against murder, robbery, rape, abortion, gun-ownership, mail fraud, prostitution, polygamy . . . you name it . . . ALL are designed to control behavior. Some of them are designed to control behavior in order to protect individual rights and some to protect societal values. Some are just out to protect one person's or groups' set of individual tastes. But while I generally tend to support laws that protect rights and oppose laws which restrict behavior on a purely moral basis, I am not consistent in that tendency and I make no apologies.