Wilson wrote:My main point is that it's easy to say that we should make all drugs legal. It's hard to design programs that would actually do the job without increasing the number of addicts.
Obviously, whoever decides, when the decision comes, there is always a specific implementation plan on the table. When the voters decided in those states in the USA, there were reasonably specific details about the implementation. When those legal heroin programs were decided upon, there was a specific plan. And then, experts and decision makers can discuss it, and make an informed decision. And then, we can evaluate the results, see if it makes things better in general, and see what direction to take as the next step.
The question is if we want to go in that direction. If we want to experiment. If we believe that there are probably possible regulatory systems that are much better than prohibition, and so it's worth trying.
Have you read the recommendations of the Global Commission on Drug Policy? I personally take those guys pretty seriously, it's Kofi Annan, the former secretary general of the UN, the former presidents of Switzerland, Chile, Portugal, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and Poland, and other high-level dignitaries, and I pretty much trust that they're motivated by a sense of responsibility.
And what they recommend, among others is to "allow and encourage diverse experiments in legally regulating markets in currently illicit drugs". Allow and encourage. Because right now much of this promising experientation is de facto disallowed by international treaties and state plitics, and it is actively discouraged by a political atmosphere that's not informed by rational thinking, but rather by fear-mongering and disinformation.
That's the question. If we as a global society want to allow ourselves the possibility of an exit strategy from this destructive, counter-productive war.