It is difficult to respond to such a complex argument succinctly, so let me start by saying that you’ve put the libertarian argument very well. I will limit my response to two points, and I hope you will continue (revise?) you’re comments based on the drug strategy I intend to lay out soon.

1. I am not trying to invoke the forced-to-be-free dogma. I am simply pointing out the limitations of the individual’s ability to understand consequences and make good choices, where the individual, not the state, defines “good.”

2. I agree that not every addict’s life is destroyed by the addiction; however, the libertarian manifesto does not address the protection of children. The addiction of a parent can irreparably damage their children, and yes, that is the value judgment - but it’s the child’s values I’m talking about. Where individuals would make decisions that do irreparable harm to their dependents, the state must intervene. This is a basic assumption of my social philosophy, and it seems to contradict something inherent to libertarianism.