[Cincinnatus]

Magic Man,

I don't take anything you've said as any kind of attack. It's quite clear from your response that either I didn't make my point very clearly, or you missed it almost entirely. If we were to decriminalize drugs and treat drug possession and use as civil offenses we would to a very great extent take the money out of business.

The cost of illicit drugs has more to do with the costs and risks of importiing, transporting, storing and protecting them than it does with producing them. If we're not interdicting and prosecuting for possession, these costs should fall precipitously. THAT will hit FARC, the Taliban, and the various criminal syndicates in their pocket books.

I'm not so foolish as to see this as a panacea, we would be trading one set of problems for another, but we'd definitely be "trading up." FARC and the Taliban won't go away and the criminal enterprises will also only be diminished. (The crime associated with illegal drug use is actually many different types of crime. There is the possession and use which would go away entirely. There is the theft and other crimes [e.g., prostitution] that users commit to finance their habits, this would be reduced, but certainly won't go away, There is the violence between gangs over turf, punishing snitches and welchers, hijacking each other's product, etc., this too, would be reduced, but won't disappear. There is the stupid shit that people do when they're high on drugs, this not only won't go away, it's likely to increase in the short term. There is the bribery and corruption of police, customs, judges and prosecutors and the system as an organism, this will be reduced enormously. Finally, there are the people who, for whatever reason, feel compelled to make their living outside the law, they will simply be displaced.)

According to the Economist, something like a third (been awhile since I read the article, so I can't be more precise) of all those incarcerated in the US are there essentially for marjuana possession. Half or more are there for crimes that would cease to be crimes under this proposal. The savings in incarceration, prosecution, and interdiction costs would be enormous. While we should expect to spend a great deal in treating those with substance abuse problems, it would amount to a tiny fraction of what we now spend and could to some extent be offset by a system of fines for possession (e.g., $100/ gram [or part thereof] for cocaine, $200/ oz [or part therof] for marijuana, $20/ pill for MDMA, amphetamines, and barbituates, etc.)

If someone is caught using or possessing drugs, they get a ticket. If they pay their fine and don't get any more tickets for a year (at which point their slate gets wiped clean), end of story. If within a year of getting a ticket, they get another, the fine doubles and they must either attend AA or NA daily for a month, see a court approved counselor/ shrink weekly for six weeks, or enter into a resident treatment program (these last two at tax payer expense.) If within a year of the second offense the person is caught a third time, they must enter a residential treatment program (usually 30 days) and for a year thereafter are subject to random testing. If, during that year, they test positive for illicit substances, it's back to the treatment facility and then a year in jail, during which they get tested weekly. If during any one of these tests they test positive, their sentence starts over.

Committing a crime while under the influence gets treated as an aggravating, rather than a mitigating, circumstance and is punished more harshly. The overall message is that you won't be prosecuted for getting high, you'll be given plenty of chances to adjust your behavior, but not getting help when it's offered and harming threatening or endangering others, damaging, destroying or stealing property will be punished.

The overwhelming majority of users would never reach the point where they were incarcerated. Most would likely never reach the point where they had to attend a treatment program. The cost of a program as outlined, while not cheap, would be only a tiny fraction of what we now spend. This is not only a more humane way of addressing the problem, it serves to undermine our enemies, for not only would they suffer a huge revenue hit, they would also lose the existing alliance with smuggler's and dope dealers and access to these networks.

I've got McCoy's book and agree it should be required reading.

When they make me king, the above will become law, along with raises for teachers and the military and the outlawing of bras on college compuses.