Stop throwing good money after bad. The witch-hunt doctor’s Rx is for every bust to numerate a bigger tax-load over a smaller denominator of payers. Spend more on prisons than on schools. My witch’s second opinion is to grow your own. More consumer discretionary dollars will stimulate the rest of the economy when they are not depleted by prohibition’s black market.

Only a clause about interstate commerce provides a shred of constitutionality. The commerce policy on the number-one cash crop in the land is no taxation; yes eradication. But money to frustrate enforcement grows on trees. Did the authors of the Constitution intend to divert Treasury revenue to outlaws? America rejected prohibition, but its back. Swat teams don’t seem to need no stinking amendment.

The demonized substances never had their day in court. Nixon promised to supply supporting evidence later. Later, the Commission evidence didn’t support, but no matter. The witch-hunt was on. No amendments can assure due-process under an anti-science law that never had any due-process itself. Science hailed LSD as a drug with breakthrough potential, until the CSA (Controlled Substances Act of 1970) halted all research. Marijuana has no medical use, period. Lives are flushed down expensive tubes.

The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) makes an exception to the CSA, allowing Native American Church members to eat peyote. A specific church membership should not be prerequisite for Americans to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. Denial of entheogen sacrament to any American, for mediation of communion twixt the soul and the source of souls, violates the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech presupposes freedom of thought. The Constitution doesn’t enumerate a governmental power to embargo diverse states of mind. How and when did government usurp this power to coerce conformity? Legislators who would limit cognitive liberty lack jurisdiction.

Common Law must hold that the people are the legal owners of their own bodies. Socrates advocates knowing your self. Mortal law should not presume to thwart the intelligent design that molecular keys unlock spiritual doors. Those who appreciate their own free choice of personal path in life should not deny self-exploration to seekers. The right to the pursuit of happiness is supposed to be inalienable by government.

Simple majorities in each house could put repeal of the CSA on the president’s desk. The books have ample law on them without the CSA. Americans are already liable for damages when they screw-up. The usual caveats remain in effect. Strong medicine requires prescription. Employees can be fired for poor job performance. No harm, no foul; and no excuse, either. Replace the war on drugs with a frugal, constitutional, science-based drugs policy.

So here is the revised version…

Government prohibition does not help the situation with doctors. Doctors are given additional incentive to hide their habit if it is illegal.

This concern could be resolved if we are go the regulation route. First, insurance/licensing could demand, before insuring or authorizing doctors, that they submit to regular drug testing. And then they could either have their status revoked, OR alternatively, there could be merely disclosure laws. So a using doctor could keep practicing, only it would have to be disclosed to patients.

And a lot of the same things that apply to neighbors also apply to doctors. Sure, almost anyone would prefer a non-addict doctor to an addict doctor. But, in choosing between an illegal addict doctor and a legal addict doctor, I’d suspect that there are a few minor advantages to the later.

I don’t see any reason why the transition to the free market would not work for drugs. I’m not a huge fan of regulation, but it would be a step up from prohibition, at least.

My guess is that there would be an instant spike/increase in supply/demand, but it would quickly taper down. Of course, economics is complicated, and I don’t think anyone knows precisely what would happen, though we can get a general idea. I suspect a reversing of what happened when drugs were illegalized would occur. After cocaine was made illegal, cocaine use went down for a number of decades and then it spiked WAY WAY WAY up. I would suggest that after legalization drug use may go up for a few years or a few decades, and then go WAY WAY WAY down.

With the amount of risk that is involved with running something like cocaine from South America, obviously someone is making a killing. No one would do it otherwise. Sure, no one individual makes the 50x profit margin. But at least a few middle men are making a killing. In a normal industry, a 1.2x profit margin would be amazing. Even if illegal cocaine takes 20x more to distribute, that’s still 30x left over for various people to take their cut. And when you multiply that into millions, thats a lot! Put it this way, cocaine alone has generated more revenue in 2005 than the Starbucks chains.

You said that “As a neighbor I don’t really want somebody next door who is tripping. Even more, as a patient I don’t want a doctor who is strung out.As an employer I wouldn’t want my employees held back from their potential by drugs.”

I share those exact same desires. However, the question we all must ask, is: Does the government’s “war on drugs” prevent any one of those things? The answer is no. Neighbors (not mine, but neighbors in general) continue to trip. So do doctors (ever here of the notorious Dr. Snow?). So do employees. Let’s take the example of neighbors. Given that neighbors can potentially be users/addicts, what would you prefer:

Scenario A: Your neighbor feeds his habit at a 50x markup from shady people who need guns to protect their industry. Your neighbor is a running financial disaster because of the expense of his habit. Your neighbor also runs the risk of violence by running in such a crowd, and also runs the risk of being locked up for 10-20 years. Your neighbor exibits justified paranoia and if he desires to seek help, he must do so with the risk of admitting illegal activity (much more risky than admitting your are an alcoholic). Your neighbor is likely to hide this activity from you.

Scenario B: You neighbor feeds his habit at a 1.5x markup from a large corporation with stringint quality standards. Quite frankly, gangs are generally not interested in the stuff because the market and corporations already run them at such a small profit margin. Your neighbor can easily maintain his habit. It’s cost is not neiglidgible, but certainly maintainable with his current job. He can go to a local licensed dealer, or he can order it mail order, or what not. If your neighbor exhibits paranoia, it is the result of his drugs and not in any sense the legality of it. He is free to get help from anyone without any worries, unless of course he is worried about being classified as an addict in general (perhaps sort of like the stigma of being an alcoholic). Your neighbor is far more likely to admit his activity to you.

Which addiction scenario (granting that both of them are NASTY addictions) would you prefer? B seems so much more preferable that I’d venture to say it seems it might remain preferable EVEN IF it meant an increase of 1% more likelyhood that a neighbor would be an addict (which I doubt would happen).

I think in light of that, even from a utilitarian perspective, legalization works.

But that doesn’t even begin to the address the issue as to whether one person has the right to determine what his neighbor is allowed to injest in the privacy of his own home. So, while I may not like my neighbor doing X, Y, Z, if it does not have a direct effect on me, who am I to restrict him/her?

Regarding employers, if government prohibition worked, why would many employers still do drug testing? Government prohibition simply does nothing to prevent drugged employees. And employers KNOW that if they really want to avoid drugged workers, they must do their own testing anyways.

Thanks for your feedback and comments. Very helpful and insightful. These are just my thoughts.. definitely not the final answer. Let me know what you think.

I’m not sure that I get what you say about laws exacerbating the problem. If the price of cocaine went higher, I think that indicates that the price to distribute it was higher too. So I don’t think it quite follows that somebody is making a killing off of it. However, I don’t know too much about economics, so I’ll take your word for it.

From a Utilitarian point of view it would seem that there would be some reason to be stopping drugs. As a neighbor I don’t really want somebody next door who is tripping. Even more, as a patient I don’t want a doctor who is strung out.As an employer I wouldn’t want my employees held back from their potential by drugs. During the Opium Wars of China, the Chinese leaders wanted the Western nations to stop selling opium to the Chinese because it was paralyzing the nation.

However, I guess the same argument could be used for alcohol, but I would not agree that we should make alcohol illegal because people might become drunks. I guess the question is if drugs are really more dangerous than alcohol.