[familyop]

"Why? Lot less incentive for them to steal, because drugs would be cheap."

No drug will be that cheap.

There was a young man--one evil piece of crap--using meth while working in a local restaurant, as nearly all of the other employees and manager were. He did so for nearly a couple of years. I wonder how many customers were poisoned.

A few weeks ago, he did the meth zombie shuffle in a Walmart store. He's no longer working. He's completely government and community (thefts, etc.) supported, as are millions of others like him.

Upgrade your policy formula to include mandatory, random, final solution hot shots (no peeking by anyone), and I might agree with it. But the secret, private, hidden hot shots must be mandated before the rest of the policy, or there will be no trust.

Or maybe concentration camps with 24/7 public web cams on every inch of them for public education. They can have all of the drugs they want and more in those places. Government wouldn't need to pay for much more than the walls and extra front end loaders and dump trucks.

Or open zombie season.

[marktwain]

No drug will be that cheap.

How about alcohol or cigarettes? We don't see drive by shooting by alcohol dealers, or boobytrapped black market tobacco farms in the national forests.

Yes, people using drugs do lots of damage. I get that.

There are lots of people who do drugs who do very little damage, but feed the criminal networks because the drugs are illegal.

I do not see any examples of a successful "war on drugs" where the cure wasn't far worse than the disease.

Perfect is not an option.

I prefer drug criminals to the totalitarian state necessary to reduce the use of illegal drugs significantly.

That State will be far more dangerous to you, your family, your freedom, and your property than the drugged up criminals if the laws criminalizing drugs are repealed.