This is from a thread I started in the wrong forum. It got locked, I said fuck it whatever. But it's pretty appropriate here.
My alternative to the current drug war:
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'm gonna fucking say it again. In fact, I'll probably repeat myself until I see someone else suggesting something similar. Well no, that's a lie because I've seen similar things but I'm still talking, eh? Oh well, I like my version.
I propose a system whereby users may attain licenses to use specific drugs with the availibility of licenses for sub-classes and entire classes of psychoactives. One will still have the issue of licensed users introducing the substance to the unlicensed, but that's not very different from the circumstances that we have now. One may argue that the availibility of the drug to unlicensed will increase as we can assume that drug use overall would increase. This is why amounts would, of course, be controlled. Easiest way would probably be like 1 dose sold a week, 2 doses sold a week, 3 doses, etc. This would all vary based on the drug (and the dose of each would obviously be different among licensees). Doses would be sold in increasing amounts based on responsible use of the substance. There'd be different levels, novice, intermediate, advanced, expert, what have you. (As an aside, how cool would it be to say "I'm an expert heroin user"?
Or, whatever drug of your choice...)
The process for licensing would be the following:
1. Physical evaluation. Are you healthy enough to use? maybe you can use relatively benign substances like alcohol or cannabis, but cannot use amphetamine due to heart complications or whatever.
2. Psychological evaluation. Are you stable enough to use?
3. Drug information class (NOT general, specific to the drug you're applying for)
4. Application (include full criminal background check for violent crimes)
All of this would cost money. But guess what? Drug use is a luxury. Luxuries cost. Nice luxuries cost a lot. I can't really think of a better luxury than being able to go get a clean, strong dose of the drug of my choice for a reasonable price, from the gov't or gov't licensed dispensaries, without fear of arrest or social persecution. Some may cry about the poor being pushed out of the game or whatever and say that this only serves the rich, but I'm not talking ridiculous expensive here. A decent sum though. Hell, if you're already doing drugs habitually, you've certainly got ways of acquiring money, so fucking save up, buy a license, and get drugs for cheap. Or don't, you know. Individual choice. The licenses are permanent providing that there are no transgressions and the following are met:
The phys and psych eval would not need to be done for every application, only annually for phys and bi annually for psych. Classes would have to be taken once every two years. Annual application renewal fees apply. Penalties for distribution with a license to a non-licensee would be WORSE than distribution from non-licensee to non-licensee. And really, I don't know what the incentive is for a licensee to distribute to a non-licensee, outside of profit. But the average user typically wants just to be able to sustain themselves, and if drugs were cheap, profit motives would be lessened, I believe. Additionally, if you're making enough money to get a drug license, you probably really don't need the few extra bucks here and there that selling your minute quantities of drugs for will net you. If a licensee were caught selling to a non-licensee, caught operating a motor vehicle under the influence, or otherwise commiting criminal acts under the influence, the license would be immediately revoked, and the penalties for a crime committed under the influence would be worse than penalties for a crime committed sober. Overall, the idea would be that you're seriously fucked if you go through all the hassle to get a license only to abuse it. And these license-abusing penalties can be a little harsh purely because they're something you sign up for.
Sharing between licensees is a simple procedure. If the sharer has an advanced or expert (ie higher level) license, they would be allowed to share the drug for which they are issued a license with another user who has a license from the same class of psychoactives. For example, if one had a license for oxycodone, and a friend with a high level fentanyl or morphine license, those two could share fent or morph. As an aside, I'm still not sure whether or not I think it's a good idea to do class-wide licensing (ie hallucinogens, opiates, etc.). Maybe it'd be something users could work up to, but not apply for from the start.
The goal is to make it so that no users want to remain unlicensed. Users can have an accurate dose, 100% purity, reasonable prices, and good times with like minded friends free from the law. Oppositely, users can have illicit market quality, unknown purity, inflated prices, and posession charges. Of course, a significant portion (most hopefully a significant minority) would choose to remain unlicensed, but this is no different from teh current situation. Licensing needs to be seen as an asset instead of an obstacle. This would better the drug situation in this country. This would increase gov't revenues. This would be a Good Thing™. The more users that see this, the more they will buy in.
There was something else I intended to cover, but it's slipping me at the moment. Unfortunate. Anyway, this proposed alternative to prohibition does one thing that some other alternatives do not: it saves the DEA. The illicit drug market would take a serious fucking hit, but I really believe that it would continue. Much of the DEA can still serve its purpose, fighting the illicit drug market. I, for one, would favor the DEA in such a situation beacuse it would push users from unlicensed use to licensed use, which would increase revenue from the system. And the DEA could also be trimmed down, LEOs transferred to other departments of the US because there's obviously still real crime to fight. Or maybe the DEA could expand, fuck. Outright pay or monetarily support professionals around the country who specialize in psychological/physical evaluation or drug education. The DEA would be the one processing the application. But now I'm more throwing ideas around than laying them out, so I'll stop.
Oh yes, I remember what it was that I intended to cover: Not all drugs would be legal. Hallucinogens, cannabis, alcohol, opiates (think medical use WRT saftey, not street use) and similar drugs which are pretty fucking safe for the vast majority of users would have licensing programs, but more physically damaging drugs like the cardiotoxic cocaine or ridiculously addictive methamphetamine would be heavily restricted, if not left outright illegal. I don't really know what to do about the ones that can pose serious physical harm quite yet.
Another goal of the project is to make it so that most non-users aren't particularly interested in going through the process to become users. Having an enabler (such as licensing) between illegal and legal use would prevent the "drugs are legal so let's go batshit insane" scenarios often spouted by those opposing outright legalization schemes.
Preaching to the choir a bit, I think we can all agree that it's fucking AD 2005. It's time to recognize the basic human instinct of altered consciousness. This model does not solve all the problems, but it solves many while also allowing citizens to explore their consciousness and variants thereof in a responsible and controlled manner. It allows users to simply be who they are, not a criminal due to their own self-affecting decisions. Many of the illegal drugs, from cannabis to heroin, mushrooms, amphetamine, et al are used without significant negative consequence. It's fucking wrong that this is ignored by the current proponents of continued illegalization, but hell, omission of this serves to keep substances illegal so what can ya expect?
Of course I'd love it if drugs could just be legal with no worries and shit, but a) I don't think society could handle that and b) there are way too much infrastructures and jobs at stake to ever expect that prohibition will just get thrown out the window.
That's all the ramble I got for ya right now.
