[CORed]

Well, if I were king, dictator, or whatever, I would have a category of recreational drugs, which would be regulated much like liquor is now, with licensed sellers and manufacturers, and taxed, at least enough to pay for the regulatory apparatus, and maybe enough to generate some net revenue. Also, I might require warning labels. If employers want to test for drugs, and not hire people who use certain drugs, that is their prerogative, likewise if insurance companies want to charge higher life, health, or car insurance premiums, or refuse to insure users of certain drugs entirely.

Also, as I stated before, drug users should be accountable, both criminally and civilly for their behavior while under the influence of drugs. This idea is not for the government to encourage the use of drugs, on the contrary, if they want to run PSA's telling people what the risks of drug use are, as they do now with tobacco, I can live with that. The idea is to acknowledge that some people are going to use drugs, and manage the consequences of that reality in a rational way.

I think the model of how we currently deal with alcohol is a pretty good model for all drugs. We might think the world would be a better place if methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin or alcohol didn't exist (not me in the case of alcohol: They will have to pry my beer bottle from my cold dead hand), but we can't legislate these substances out of existence, so we need to manage them in a rational manner. I agree that politically speaking, it doesn't look like this is going to happen any time soon. The government and folks like the Partnership for a Drug-free America, have done such a good job of brainwashing most people that they can't see that most of the problems related to illegal drugs are the result of the illegality, not the drugs.