The Tough Topics #7: Hard Drugs

I am an antiprohibitionist, so I may be biased. But I don't see them expanding prohibition to include tobacco. In fact, I see it going the other way.

If I had my druthers, all currently-illegal controlled dangerous substances would be legalized. Manufacturing contracts for each "hard drug" would be strictly controlled by the government, and awarded to pharmaceutical companies on an incentive basis. The details would be public, not negotiated behind closed doors. Let's face it: the product is not medicine. It is poison, acknowledged just as alcohol is an acknowledged poison. It requires zero research, so the would-be manufacturer just has to deal with a known commodity with known ingredient costs and known overhead to put it together. The pharmaceutical company that puts in the best bid in the public interest gets the contract!

Bids would involve structuring a percentage of profits to subsidize prescription drug benefits, or insurance benefits, or research, or whatever. Let them get creative if they want that fat, lucrative contract! Government taxes on consumer purchases would go towards addiction and recovery programs for drugs of all sorts, including alcohol.

Marijuana would not be in the "hard drugs" class. It would be regulated about the same as alcohol. Details for that can be easily worked out. Does anybody care about marijuana? I mean, come on. It's not "hard drugs" by any stretch. It should probably be regulated less stringently than alcohol. Just keep the smoke out of my face is my main stipulation.

Hard drugs, on the other hand. They would then be available much cheaper than any illegal product could be, with purity and quality controls in place like any other FDA-regulated item. As far as restrictions on sale or use, they would be treated similar to alcohol in many respects, but not in all respects. There would be a new "class" created, with certain rules to deal with the specifics of the problem. Hard drugs would be available to recreational users through approved channels. They would be theoretically available to anyone over 21, but anyone who wants to use legally would be forced to apply for and receive a "User ID" like a driver's license. So that in order to buy, you'd have to make the choice to be a registered hard drugs user, and that choice would be a matter of public record.

The current draconian anti-drug laws would remain in force. But going forward, they would be applied solely to those who attempt to illegally buy, sell, distribute or use. Since legalization and regulation would cut most of the profit out of it, most of that problem would wither on the vine.

Arguably, having a legal option available would render the draconianness of our anti-drug laws almost justified.

Now like any proposal, this one has drawbacks. For one thing, the drug companies would probably rename everything: "Feeling a bit bored? Depressed by your life circumstances? Try Crackosil™. Side effects may include high blood pressure, addiction, paranoia, heart attack and occasional psychotic break."