By this I think you mean criminalization of drugs? If this is what you mean, then you have absolutely hit the nail on the head when you ask "Which is worse?"
The Libertarian argument is that what we have now is worse. But I can point you to a time and place in history where they did the exact opposite of what we have done, and it was, in fact, the exact thing the Libertarians are asking for now, and it produced results far worse than anything we have experienced up till now.
So your question is a valid point. We should chose the path that is most likely to give us the best result, meaning the least misery and suffering overall.
If history is taken into account, it would appear that criminalization is the better path, though we are suffering through a great deal of abuse in it's implementation now. I would argue that we can curtail the abuse, but the fundamental concept of criminalizing drugs cannot be done away with without creating a far worse disaster.
I believe the right road to take is the road we’ve taken with cigarettes: legalize, control, prohibit advertising, and anti-pot PR campaigns.
Currently for me, the danger of Pot is an enigma. I don't have any solid answers regarding whether or not it will produce results as bad as hard drugs, but regarding hard drugs, that question has been long answered to my satisfaction. They will destroy any nation that permits them.
Well, no need to be coy! What was the time and place in history? Let me guess: Before the invention of the printing press? Before the invention of gunpowder? When most people still believed in witches? Certainly before the penning of the Bill of Rights?
Regards,
Opium wasn't criminalized until 1875, and marijuana in the '30s. We tried criminalizing alcohol in 1917, but the effort proved to be too costly.
I also think about the fact that anyone, of any age, can huff paint if they want to. But very few do.
'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs