Skip to comments.My Proposal for Systems of Legal Recreational Drugs
Posted on 11/06/2017 9:11:50 AM PST by Brian Griffin
I know this proposal will be met with strong opposition, but it is my firm belief that the 108-year old 'War on Drugs' needs to come to an end. It has turned into a decades-long war on millions of our young people.
It would be replaced with FDA-supervised quality control systems for supplies of comparatively safe recreational drug forms, probably reducing the number of overdose deaths by over 98% (~50,000/year -> ~1,000/year).
Manufacturers, distributors, retailers and customers would have to get DEA licenses.
There would be three forms of customer DEA licenses: casual user, habitual cocaine user and habitual opiate user costing $100, $200 and $300 respectively and good for one year after issue.
The requirement for licenses, their cost and their annual form would greatly restrict the customer base.
The habitual user licenses would only be available to those with paid-up recreational drug medical (ER treatment and methadone taper) and burial/cremation expense coverage provided by DEA-licensed entities.
The customer DEA licenses would be only available to legal residents and citizens at least 21 years of age.
Application would be as for passports but the picture of the person must be three times the size.
The licenses would be similar to a passport. Each one would have an electronic chip enabling dispensers to pull up the licensee's picture and dispensing information quickly.
The habitual cocaine user license would only be good for cocaine beverages.
The habitual opiate user license would only be good for methadone or codeine beverages. These beverages would come in three colors:
a. yellow for concentrations unlikely to kill novice users
b. orange for concentrations that might kill novice users
c. red for concentrations that would likely kill novice users
The DEA would also manage a laboratory and prescribing system that habitual opiate users would have to use to buy concentrations other than yellow. Prescriber/laboratory pricing might be reasonably controlled by state law.
The beverages would come in two-liter bottles. There would be a $3/liter federal tax. The purchase of 365 two-liter bottles would mean federal tax revenue of $2,160 per year per habitual user. Retail pricing might be reasonably controlled by state law.
The DEA would run a system to ensure that within any thirty-day period no more than sixty liters of product could be bought by a habitual user license holder.
The DEA would run a system to ensure that within any five-day period no more than one liter of cocaine soda product and/or one ounce of marijuana could be bought by a casual user license holder.
There would be no additional replacement allowed for lost or stolen bottles or marijuana.
People might try to make crack from their cocaine soda by boiling or evaporation, but they might burn up their 30-day ration within about one week.
Retailers would have to print and attach a label with your picture (and the customer's maximum authorized concentration by color & shade) to each bottle sold.
Possession of a bottle without a label with the possessor's picture except by a retailer, distributor or manufacturer would be punishable with a $100 fine per bottle.
Customer license holders would be forbidden to sell or transfer any recreational drug product. Unlawful transfer would be punishable by license revocation. Any sale or any transfer to a person not properly licensed would be punishable by up to two years imprisonment and a five-year licensure bar.
A state may revoke, according to its law(s), any DEA license of any person found in possession of or driving a motor vehicle in the state, subject to judicial review and reinstatement for just cause.
A habitual opiate user with a revoked/suspended/cancelled license would have to seek out and get on buprenorphine/naloxone maintenance or a traditional methadone taper.
An employer in an industrial zone, possessing equipment required to emit backup noise or in the business of passenger transport may block/suspend employee and contract employee DEA licenses for a $100/employee annual fee. A person would have to pay $10 via a DEA website to send a reconfirmation letter to their (former) employer. Failure to reconfirm within 30 days of mailing would result in license reinstatement.
A person with a pilot's license or commercial or motorcycle driving license in effect shall be barred from getting a DEA license.
A person getting a pilot's license, commercial or motorcycle driving license shall have their DEA licenses cancelled.
Stop calling it a “War”
It’s not . .that’s just political-speak
If the elites really wanted to have a “War on Drugs” they could
They just choose not too. Another reason we have “open borders”
I would eliminate any law or regulation on drugs, except for those that wish to be certified by the FDA for prescription.
It’s not that the WOD has been ineffective (it’s had some effect) or that it puts “our children” at legal risk.
It’s that the WOD has created a Police State without property rights. And a completely dismantled 4th Amendment.
How would this change anything? You’d still be enforcing the drug laws against people without the license, which might be mist people.
Do I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for the various medical conditions and treatments with which habitual drug-users routinely deal?
Do I have to pay for their lifestyle by supporting them on the public dole?
Its good to think outside the box.
On the other hand, my immediate impression of your plan - the FDA and DEA run everything. Fed.gov become the pushers. Leftist will love it. They can tie all their nanny-state treatment schemes to it.
How about banning all drug users from any government aid or assistance?
“It would be replaced with FDA-supervised quality control systems”
We need a Federal Drug Pusher Agency? Oy.
1. Execute drug smugglers.
2. Imprison drug dealers.
3. Sentence drug users to internal exile.
Details on #3:
It doesn’t make sense to send drug users to prison. Instead send them to special communities to dry out. Each user gets a small bungalow, a food allowance, and a plot of land to plant a garden. And, of course, each community is surrounded by barbed wire.
I say go with the Darwin theory. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Everyone knows that the government has its dirty little hands in the sale of illegal drugs and theyre too addicted to that and the war on drug money. Our government is crooked. It ceased being for the people and are only in it for themselves.
Defund the DEA and let Darwin do his thing.
You want to end the War on Drugs?
And here you are suggesting some 20-30 new laws, rules, regulations and proposals to do just that?
(insert hysterical laughing here)
You are part of the problem, man. Part of the problem.
Opium Dens for Denizens.
You’ve put some real thought into this, and much of it makes good sense. The weakness probably comes in enforcement, as we could see similar benefits by mandatory drug testing and enforcing existing laws, but we don’t do it.
Maybe the technology is or will exist to insert a biomarker that is impossible to synthesize outside of controlled labs to prevent “bootlegging”, which a controlled distribution system like this would encourage. As soon as you invent a better lock, it incentivizes a better lockpicker.
There is almost zero political support for getting the government out of the way of people's learning experiences.
I’d recommend land mines.
“I say go with the Darwin theory. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”
That works if druggies would pay the bill for their choices. Unfortunately, it’s everyone else that gets stuck with the bill - family and taxpayers.
So you want to starve them to death?
What takes 2 or 3 pages of legal code to ban outright becomes 2 or 3 thousand pages of management laws, plus a massive, expensive new bureaucracy to manage it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.