War on Drugs madness has led to governmental interference in our lives reaching absurd proportions. Historically, people have used the substances available to them to ease anxieties, self-medicate for chronic or medically untreatable pain, relax, recreate, celebrate, become more sensitized to art/beauty/relationships, become less sensitized to poverty/ugliness/hunger, search for spiritual fulfillment, change their consciousness one way or another. For most of history this was an incidental aspect of human behavior. The problem with illicit drugs (as opposed to the drugs this society condones, for whatever accidental reasons) is the profit motive resulting from their artificially inflated prices, which leads to bloody battles among those who want to make those profits, and between the profiteers and the law enforcement personnel with whom they are at war (and the incidental innocent bystanders who get caught up in the mess). So, when we see statistics saying how concerned people are about "the drug problem," what most of them are concerned about is the violence and street crime resulting from this profit motive, which in turn results from the laws themselves creating these opportunities for obscene profit the like of which few of us can begin to approach through legal means.

To lower the incidence of serious abuse of drug use (the other major concern about drugs being the reckless behavior and general danger to individuals from abuse of drugs), wouldn't it be more practical to control the legal use of these substances? Even with the (much smaller) black market that might result from regulation, the desperation of addicts and huge profits for dealers would not exist to lead to the kinds of horrendous results we face in the current situation. We could have regulated sales with high taxation, while still keeping prices well below current street levels; and these tax revenues could be earmarked to fund treatment for abusers, education and medical programs (to help mitigate any harmful consequences of substance abuse -- rather than "helping" these people by throwing them into jails to become educated criminals).

Advertising of these substances could be banned; but intensive advertising of possible harmful effects, to help people to avoid these effects, could be encouraged. Public intoxication and driving under the influence could be illegal (with serious penalties for impaired drivers, such as are ever more contemplated for drunk drivers). Highly regulated legal distribution would allow for the kind of knowledge and control which is impossible under the existing system of uncontrolled illicit transactions.

Minors would not be pressured into drug use or sales by criminals seeking to expand profits or to involve less legally liable dupes to do their work for them, or by the money and status seeking of these minors themselves. Nor would people wanting/needing these substances be forced into contact with criminals and led by degrees into various criminal behaviors, nor be as subject to the risks of tainted products. Treatment programs funded by the taxation of sales of these drugs could be much more readily available to those who need them, and without the paranoia engendered by legal considerations, people might be more likely to seek treatment.

More room would become available in prisons and courtrooms for violent criminals if it were not taken up by nonviolent drug users and dealers; and there would be less violence in our communities without drug-profit related crimes. Harsher penalties could be legislated against criminals who commit crimes while under the influence of drugs, to prevent their trying to use their drug-induced misjudgment as an excuse for criminal behavior and increase the general idea of responsible use of mind-altering substances. Public resources desperately and ineffectually being thrown into the anti-drug war would become available for such problems as homelessness, poverty, intrafamilial violence, lack of quality education, et al. -- the root causes of addiction.