THere would always be that contingent who would conceal their drug use, and thus, the underground market would remain, even if substantially diminished.
While I agree with much of your sentiment, the program is all carrot and no stick.
Add in execution for drug traffickers and addicts/users who try to subvert the system and it might be more effective. Harsh, you might say, but definite incentive to go with the program or not go at all.
Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same.
Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments.
Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition.
We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.
The logical core of the article. --- Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.
Governments are limited to legally 'reasonable' regulatory powers by the basic principles of our constitution.
posted at #6
I've no problem with harsh measures for those who choose to remain underground. My only concern, as I'm certain you recognize, is for those who haven't been lured into the drug culture or those who are victimized to support an addict's habit.