Drugs and violence

I haven't watched the PBS Newhour for awhile but switched over there after the local weather last night.  There was a very sad and compelling feature on the violence in northern Mexico.  And there was a piece on the new Arizona law which apparently encourages police to harass people who look Hispanic, with at least one sheriff saying that he did not have near enough resources to enforce the law.  My general view is that if you are going to ask Hispanics for their "papers," you must ask everyone to prove their citizenship.  However, beyond that, our drug laws again strike me as ludicrous.   They have never prevented drugs from being readily available, like prohibition did not prevent alcohol.  They cost a lot of money in law enforcement.  They lead to violence in Mexico and here between drug gangs.  I realize the paternalistic point that it is to try to help people avoid becoming addicts, and maybe this can be defended with regard to children.  But wouldn't it make more sense to tax drug sales and spend more on treatment for addiction?  Because drugs are illegal, smugglers are able to make huge profits (and buy weapons and government officials).  Why cannot we just get over the big brother approach and help the taxpayers out at the same time?

Of course, this is a very libertarian approach.  Why don't more conservatives favor it?  You tell me, but I think this is one more example of inconsistentcy in the supposed philosophy of conservatism, which really doesn't amount to much more than a dislike of liberals and a cluster of often conflicting beliefs.  Read The National Review sometime.  The Cato Institute recently had a good critique on the point of our endless wars (by Joe Scarborough in the most recent Cato's Letter, which did not have a link yet).   The cost is not worth the benefit, similar to the "war on drugs."

Addendum 7/31:  Here is an article on the deaths in Mexico.  The main point to me is the lack of facts regarding what is happening and the murder of journalists who attempt to report them.   It is from The Nation, so I take it with a grain of salt.  I'm not sure what the author implies:  that President Calderon and the Army are murdering civilians?  For what purpose?