There will come a shift from drug use being seen as a criminal problem to a health problem.
We would not be finding a panacea though. We would be changing the current problems with drugs now which is mainly; enforcement of drug laws (Police, Judicial and incaceration costs) for a new set of problems that on paper look like they have the best chance of reducing the damage of drug use to the individual user and society as a whole.
Staged Decriminalisation followed by Regulation/Legalisation and Taxation
Regarding the specifics of the laws, I would look at a staged decriminalisation (starting with weed obviously) over many years leading to legalisation/regulation.
I would immediately legalise any naturally grown or cultivated plant, fungus etc...and allow people to grow/cultivate it as they please. I would leave the private unlicensed sale/distribution of any drug (pharmaceutical, grown, cultivated, alcohol or tobacco) illegal, but reduce sentences greatly to mainly fines except for extreme cases.
I am unsure if I would make the newly legalised drugs available and taxed for in stores sale though. The thought of pure coke at sub-illicit prices being available to 18+'s as they please. The problem is as soon as you say "coke and heroin" should only be available on script to addicts. Then people on the street start manufacturing morphine and other stimulants. Drawing arbitrary lines between what is "too dangerous" becomes endless intellectualising, so we do need an "either or" approach.
My idea would be to clearly define that all naturally occuring drugs that do not require chemical alteration and/or need water only extractions should be allowed to be sold in licensed head shops. We cannot legislate against nature.
Cocaine (extracted form), heroin, meth and the "hard" (synthetic) drugs that are physically addictive should not be available for sale in these shops, but made available to addicts through GP's and drug clinics. Regarding their legal status they would remain illegal to sell/distribute (I don't think we can have "licensed" shops just selling this shit to 18 year olds and we still need to cut some of the profits from international crime rings that may persist in profitting from the newly created "grey" market), but simple possession and use without interference with any else's freedom should be allowed. Synthetic drugs a la the majority of PiHKAL and TiHKAL would therefore remain illegal to sell/distribute, but simple possession and use would remain legal. Manufacturing synthetic drugs for personal use would be legal, provided you are licensed to use the chemicals and are using a facility that abides by all laws regarding chemical use and safety (we don't want idiots blowing up and polluting neighbourhoods). Controlling the "grey" market properly is the biggest challenge with drug law reform and my ideas on this are probably not fail-safe by a long shot, further debate is needed.
Possible New Problems that will replace the old ones
The money saved on drug law enforcement and gained from taxation (billions of dollars annually no doubt) could then be spent on; accurate drug awareness programs, addiction clinics (or "health centres" - we need a non-threatening name) and other societal needs arising from drug use.
IF (and it is a big "IF") there is an increase in the variety, frequency and duration of individual drug usage patterns coupled with an increased number of overall users this could lead to an increase in mental health problems in society and we will have to keep a watch on the amount of resources we are giving mental health facilities Australia-wide to make sure that they are more than sufficient.
Having a chemical test for DUI that accurately measures a user a being too intoxicated to drive (and not just simply picking up trace amount) for the myriad of drugs (including pharma) out there would be a problem.
The Drug Law Proponent's arguments are becoming increasingly weakened by newer sociological, law enforcement and pharmacological studies.
Their main arguments are:
I see a few prongs,
1) It causes crime. This is a circular argument. It causes crime because it is made a crime and therefore being in possession of it is a crime. The regulation of drugs will drop prices to end users who will then not need as much money to get high and thus reduce crime.
2) They don't like other people having fun, they were the squares that the hippies laughed at in college and you bet they still remember those days. No one wants to admit this one, but it is back there trying to be suppressed in their mind. As the baby boomer politicians begin to leave politics and gen Y takes over we will see a drastic change in drug laws.
3) It's bad for you. I find this statement the most perculiar, as the idea that the state cares so much about YOUR health that it is willing to fine or incarcerate you, just to protect YOU from YOURSELF, defies all logic. Sure any drug used excessively will be bad, remember though all illicit drugs do not cause the death and societal cost that alcohol, tobacco and big pharma do and it's not even a close contest.
4) This is another argument they will not admit to openly. They're scared the little worker drones won't go to work and will just get high all day and the economic pyramid will come crumbling down. Psychedelics give people "crazy" ideas about the value of human life and nature. The rich and the politicians have the greatest to lose in a shift of the zeitgeist.
Our Approach to exposing the irratonality of drug laws
We need to make the history of drug laws in this nation available on fliers and on websites as the original reasons mention none of their main four grievances to drugs now. What does that tell you about the rationality about drug laws? It's like the justfications for the Iraq war, whatever keeps the sheeple quiet. The majority of drug laws were mainly introduced to oppress minorities. There is a doco series that looks at the historical reasons behind the banning of all of the common classes of drugs.
Also we need to expose the drug war as the 30+ year and trillion dollar (global) failure that it has become. Let alone the human costs. The studies and statistics are on our side, people need to know this.
Drug Law Enforcement Failure
There are two main approaches to drug law enforcement:
1) Exceedingly harsh punishments to act as a "deterrent".
This is the SE Asian approach and it has not resulted in lower drug usage rates.
2) Sophisticated detection equipment and greater customs monitoring (i.e. more money spent on detection). The "police state" or "big brother" model.
This is the American approach. US tax payers spend more money on drug law enforcement per capita than anyone else and it has made no difference.
