Even if you were to identify a drug that truly had absolutely no possible positive purpose, "Should we allow..." would still be the response of tyranny.
Should we allow murder?
Should we allow rape?
Should we allow canabilism?
Should we allow incest?
Should we allow pedophilia?
Should we allow slavery?
I'm afraid that isn't tyranny but necessary decisions by a civilized society.
"Should we allow...?" is a tyrannical question. Let's try mine:
Does the government have the just power to prohibit murder? Yes, because it involves an aggressor violating the rights of a victim.
Does the government have the just power to prohibit rape? Yes, because it involves an aggressor violating the rights of a victim.
Does the government have the just power to prohibit cannibalism? Well, what are we talking about here? Is cannibalism a person eating a human corpse that he justly owns? If so, there's no aggression or violation of rights involved, so it cannot be justly prohibited. Did the cannibal murder the person whose body he's eating? Then the murder is actionable. Did the person die of natural causes, but the cannibal stole his corpse to eat? Then the theft is actionable. But the government does not have any place in an individual's decision about what to put into his own body.
Does the government have the just power to prohibit incest? Yes, because it involves an aggressor violating the rights of a victim.
Does the government have the just power to prohibit pedophilia? Well, what do you mean by pedophilia? Do you mean child molestation? Then yes, because it involves an aggressor violating the rights of a victim. Do you mean someone who, while perversely sexually attracted to children, never acts on that attraction? Then no, because the government does not have any place in an individual's decision about what he thinks.
Does the government have the just power to prohibit slavery? Yes, because it involves an aggressor violating the rights of a victim.
Specifically, it involves an aggressor abridging the liberties of a victim in
precisely the same way that a government abridges the liberties of its subjects when it prohibits behaviors that involve no aggressor and no victim, but only consensus.
Do you see how "Should we allow...?" appeals only to emotion and has no objective limits, while "Does the government have the just power to...?" leads to more sober, rational analysis of the situation?
Anything else is anarchy and we both know how that works out.
You ain't from around here, are you?
