The analogy is obviously not perfect because the state is necessary for an organized society. But if you get into a discussion over anarchy here then I won't have time to reply.
The analogy is implicit, but indeed it has anarchist implications. But the point, to refute your analogy, remains: the state is never your
friend. It's a system of violence, standing above society, however democratic it is, that's what it will remain.
As I said, it's a lot more different than mere dislike.
Granted - but one can replace 'dislike' with any expression more appropriate, the principle stands.
But it's ok for drug dealers to abuse members of society because technically the member of society's choice to start taking the drugs was a "free" one. I don't buy it.
Drug dealers and their alleged 'abuse' of society (besides the ones who are actual criminals) never came into it. After all, I would like legalization, not mere decriminalization.
They become addicted to these drugs because the drugs themselves are addictive in one way or another. People's addictions "get out of hand". There's a difference between a matter getting out of hand and a person making a free, rational choice. The drugs themselves encourage more and more drug taking.
It can take some time for substances to become physically addictive (aside from say nicotine or cocaine). Alcohol would be a notable example. Regardless of however addictive it is, people choose to take such-or-such poisin once... And then they may well choose to again. Continuing in this fashion physical compulsion at some point exerts itself. But I consider them to have made a choice at the end of the day. Addictions are also conquered. Which most of the time requires help. Nonetheless, help or not, they made the decision. People are sometimes required to detox, but if they don't really want to they'll be heating up spoons again pretty shortly.
The difference is, you see the state as a separate entity to the people and thus you regard all laws as aliens forcing our hands. In a truly democratic state, the law is not like how you see it.
State is typically defined as: an institution, or set of institutions, with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory. [My preferred just-as-accurate one being: a tool in the hands of the ruling class.]
The state is not my friend - it has, and as long as it exists, will always have a gun behind my back. As long as it remains and it is such I would prefer the trappings of civil/political rights that it will afford me. [Until of course it is usurped, finally falls back upon itself.]
By the first paragraph I mean people often are in clear need of help. The state is there to provide that help.
Against
their will?
I acknowledge that if people really want to get their own way, there is sometimes little we can do. But if we can safely assume that a person isn't in the right frame of mind, or isn't thinking straight, then I believe the state should be able to use some amount of pressure.
Pressure is one thing, legal force is another. If it possible to talk someone out of it then all those means should be used. But that is different from what you suggested previously. To refer to your analogy, I doubt few people wouldn't try and forcibly stop someone they cared about jumping off a cliff. But I don't want the government assuming such a role.
Poll
Topic: Legalizing Drugs