I'm not suggesting a goverment "program" unless you are such an anarcist that you consider a driver's license to be a government "program".
You assert that but the experience of Prohibition doesn't bear that out, al least not the calamity you imply.
There was a marked increase in liver diseaese after the repeal of prohibition. I'm not implying that prohibition was a good thing but it does demonstrate that recreational drug abuse increases when its legal. While pot is rather mild, the abuse of harder drugs (heroin, LSD, crack) is far more damaging than alcohol.
Should we register drunks?
Register - no. License - yes. If they have a license to consume alcohol (and presently you do have to show proof of age to purchase alcohol, so this is not without precident)it means that they have the insurance to cover the medical problems that they're going to have, nor will I have to worry that my airplane pilot is drunk.
As the article stated, we spend trillions (with a "T") on this failed "war". For that kind of dough, we could deal with a few problem addicts and still give you a good chunk of change back.
Well, there it is. Lets go from big socialism to socialism-lite. Well, thats still socialism now, isn't it? I would still have to pay for someone else's recreational drug use.
That point is tiresomely exaggerated. Just as with alcohol, the majority of people would pay their way through life with no input from you.
To be consistant, you should advocate alcohol prohibition since you currently bear the cost of winos who live on the street for health care or in some cases shelters. They do not get free or subsidized booze, yet for some reason you suggest this would be the case for pot or coke.
Still, I find it hard to follow your reasoning that changing strategy to deal with this problem in a way that could reduce cost by, say, 75% is some head long rush toward socialism. I thought conservatives were all about reducing the size and scope of government.