What option would you prefer for recreational/illicit drug policy?

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Option A:
Maintain the status quo for federal drug laws. Each state can pass whatever drug laws they want, but the federal government can still pick and choose which drug laws to enforce and which states/persons/dealers/etc. to go after, depending on which President/party is in office.

Option B:
Ramp up the war on drugs nationwide with even stiffer penalties and even more "draconian" anti-drug laws.

Option C:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs and raise taxes and/or allocate funds from other programs to pay for federal and/or state treatment for addiction. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option D:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs, but the government is not going to pay for addiction treatment or other medical procedures to treat any damage to your body that results from taking drugs. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option E:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs and raise taxes and/or allocate funds from other programs to pay for federal and/or state treatment for addiction. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option F:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs, but the government is not going to pay for addiction treatment or other medical procedures to treat any damage to your body that results from taking drugs. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option G:
Completely leave drug policy up to each individual state. Get the federal government entirely out of drug policy. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option H:
Completely leave drug policy up to the federal government. No states rights when it comes to drug laws. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option I:
Completely leave drug policy up to each individual state. Get the federal government entirely out of drug policy. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option J:
Completely leave drug policy up to the federal government. No states rights when it comes to drug laws. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option K:
Other. Describe your ideal drug policy.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Is one of your options: treat drugs and cigarettes the same as we treat alcohol, in all respects? If not, that's what I'd do. I'd probably change some of the laws so that mere possession is not criminal in any regard. I really don't care that someone has drugs of any sort (alcohol and nicotine being drugs too), I care that while under their influence, one causes direct harm to someone (or their property) other than themselves.

As for the treatment aspects, it's not clear to me that addiction itself is or is not a disease, and I don't think the psychiatric community have arrived at a clear conclusion on the matter. Some scholars think it is and others think it is not. There seems to be a strong case for both positions. Accordingly, for now while the jury's out, I think it best, because we are talking about people and lives, to err on the side of caution and compassion and implement policy based on it being a disease. It's clear to me that at some point in the addiction process, one makes a choice to try a given substance. Nobody, for example, starts smoking a pack or two a day. Eventually, however the role of choice becomes irrelevant because the person can no more choose to stop using the substance than they can choose not to have gall stones.

• The Discovery of Addiction: Changing Conceptions of Habitual Drunkenness in America
  
• Defining Addiction
• Addiction as accomplishment: The discursive construction of disease (sociological perspective)
  
• Choice, Behavioural Economics and Addiction
  
• Addiction and the Brain-Disease Fallacy
  
• Neurobiologic Advances from the Brain Disease Model of Addiction
  
• The Science of Addiction: Drugs, Brains, and Behavior
  
• Addiction and Choice: Theory and New Data
  
• Alternative Models of Addiction
  
• Drug addiction. Is it a disease or is it based on choice? A review of Gene Heyman's Addiction: A disorder of choice

Note to would be responders regarding whether addiction is a disease or a consequence of bad choices....Don't reply to me about what you think one way or the other without reading the linked content above. I don't care what you think, and I am well aware that there isn't a clear consensus among psychiatrists and among neurologists. Frankly, I'm not looking to engage in discussion on this topic. I merely desired to answer the OP's question.​

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Is one of your options: treat drugs and cigarettes the same as we treat alcohol, in all respects? If not, that's what I'd do.

Probably option C or D, or you could choose Option K if you don't like any of the options and want to describe your own ideal policy.

Edit: As for whether addiction exists, I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so I won't even try to get into that debate lol. I'm inclined to think that addiction exists, but not just for drugs. People can be addicted to video games, for example, or just about anything.

 

[emilynghiem]

Decriminalize but allow states to enforce their own
policies against providing drugs to persons with addictions,
and thus requiring some kind of health screening and
free access to healing if addictions/abuses are found.

Definitely do not require taxpayers to pay for health costs
or criminal costs for drug related issues.

If taxpayers per state BELIEVE in paying those costs as
part of their "free choice and beliefs" about drug policy,
those taxpayers should be held responsible and not impose
this burden on the general public, who should have a choice.

I recommend to states to set up policies of REWARDING
districts with taxbreaks for reducing crime and drug abuse/addictions/costs
and with increase in funding for health care and medical programs/facilities,
instead of the money/resources all going into billion-dollar waste on prison
and pharmaceutical industry contracts. Again give taxpayers a choice
if they'd rather fund health care for law abiding citizens as a reward,
or keep funding criminal behavior and drug problems so that
states and citizens are left with "no money" to cover health care.

Which way do people want it?
If you want health care coverage then cut down on crime
which means cutting down on drug abuse, addictions, etc.
And start using those SAME resources and facilities to provide
medical programs and services for the general public for the same budget.

That's the message we should send the public
and should reinforce with state policy and budgets.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Probably option C or D, or you could choose Option K if you don't like any of the options and want to describe your own ideal policy.

Okay...I went with "K" for there are aspect of "C" and "D" that I definitely don't like.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Definitely do not require taxpayers to pay for health costs or criminal costs for drug related issues.

Well, if one must be incarcerated in connection with a substance-related (caused) offense, just who do you presume will pay the cost of jailing them? Are you suggesting that house arrest be the incarceration penalty assigned?

 

[Kosh]

Option A:
Maintain the status quo for federal drug laws. Each state can pass whatever drug laws they want, but the federal government can still pick and choose which drug laws to enforce and which states/persons/dealers/etc. to go after, depending on which President/party is in office.

Option B:
Ramp up the war on drugs nationwide with even stiffer penalties and even more "draconian" anti-drug laws.

Option C:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs and raise taxes and/or allocate funds from other programs to pay for federal and/or state treatment for addiction. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option D:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs, but the government is not going to pay for addiction treatment or other medical procedures to treat any damage to your body that results from taking drugs. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option E:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs and raise taxes and/or allocate funds from other programs to pay for federal and/or state treatment for addiction. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option F:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs, but the government is not going to pay for addiction treatment or other medical procedures to treat any damage to your body that results from taking drugs. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option G:
Completely leave drug policy up to each individual state. Get the federal government entirely out of drug policy. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option H:
Completely leave drug policy up to the federal government. No states rights when it comes to drug laws. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option I:
Completely leave drug policy up to each individual state. Get the federal government entirely out of drug policy. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option J:
Completely leave drug policy up to the federal government. No states rights when it comes to drug laws. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option K:
Other. Describe your ideal drug policy.

No matter the course you will have addiction problems, so you need to know how to deal with that first before you can choose how to handle it.

Right now, legalizing everything would be bad.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Right now, legalizing everything would be bad.

I'm pretty libertarian about letting grown adults do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on other people's rights. However, I don't really support legalizing meth or heroin. When Gary Johnson was on Joe Rogan's podcast, he said he met with a lot of U.S. Judges, and they were unanimously against legalization of meth. They didn't seem to care about legalization of other drugs, but he didn't really go into much detail about that. He just said they wanted him to know that meth was very bad news, which I would agree.

 

[FA_Q2]

I would have selected E except for the bold:

Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs and raise taxes and/or allocate funds from other programs to pay for federal and/or state treatment for addiction. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Tax the drug and use those taxes to exclusively treat things such as addiction treatment or medical costs associated with its use. No money from "other" programs required.

 

[FA_Q2]

Option A:
Maintain the status quo for federal drug laws. Each state can pass whatever drug laws they want, but the federal government can still pick and choose which drug laws to enforce and which states/persons/dealers/etc. to go after, depending on which President/party is in office.

Option B:
Ramp up the war on drugs nationwide with even stiffer penalties and even more "draconian" anti-drug laws.

Option C:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs and raise taxes and/or allocate funds from other programs to pay for federal and/or state treatment for addiction. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option D:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs, but the government is not going to pay for addiction treatment or other medical procedures to treat any damage to your body that results from taking drugs. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option E:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs and raise taxes and/or allocate funds from other programs to pay for federal and/or state treatment for addiction. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option F:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs, but the government is not going to pay for addiction treatment or other medical procedures to treat any damage to your body that results from taking drugs. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option G:
Completely leave drug policy up to each individual state. Get the federal government entirely out of drug policy. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option H:
Completely leave drug policy up to the federal government. No states rights when it comes to drug laws. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option I:
Completely leave drug policy up to each individual state. Get the federal government entirely out of drug policy. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option J:
Completely leave drug policy up to the federal government. No states rights when it comes to drug laws. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option K:
Other. Describe your ideal drug policy.

No matter the course you will have addiction problems, so you need to know how to deal with that first before you can choose how to handle it.

Right now, legalizing everything would be bad.

That includes option A - leave it as it is.

We already have addiction problems. Making drugs illegal is not really changing that.

 

[emilynghiem]

Right now, legalizing everything would be bad.

I'm pretty libertarian about letting grown adults do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on other people's rights. However, I don't really support legalizing meth or heroin. When Gary Johnson was on Joe Rogan's podcast, he said he met with a lot of U.S. Judges, and they were unanimously against legalization of meth. They didn't seem to care about legalization of other drugs, but he didn't really go into much detail about that. He just said they wanted him to know that meth was very bad news, which I would agree.

What if abortion and drug policies could be addressed
under a THIRD type of law (besides civil or criminal)

What if there were "Health and Safety" policies decided democratically per state
(where Sensitive issues could be decided PER DISTRICT what THOSE
taxpayers want to fund as policies or not to be responsible for the costs)

And each state would be responsible for balancing the COST
of paying for nonsense vs. affording health care for the public.

Wouldn't that serve as INCENTIVE for healthier behavior
if it meant using taxes to pay for medical programs and facilities with the
same resources that would otherwise be wasted on bad behavior?

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

I would have selected E except for the bold:

Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs and raise taxes and/or allocate funds from other programs to pay for federal and/or state treatment for addiction. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Tax the drug and use those taxes to exclusively treat things such as addiction treatment or medical costs associated with its use. No money from "other" programs required.

Good point. Obviously, taxing drugs would probably raise a lot of money.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Right now, legalizing everything would be bad.

I'm pretty libertarian about letting grown adults do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on other people's rights. However, I don't really support legalizing meth or heroin. When Gary Johnson was on Joe Rogan's podcast, he said he met with a lot of U.S. Judges, and they were unanimously against legalization of meth. They didn't seem to care about legalization of other drugs, but he didn't really go into much detail about that. He just said they wanted him to know that meth was very bad news, which I would agree.

What if abortion and drug policies could be addressed
under a THIRD type of law (besides civil or criminal)

What if there were "Health and Safety" policies decided democratically per state
(where Sensitive issues could be decided PER DISTRICT what THOSE
taxpayers want to fund as policies or not to be responsible for the costs)

And each state would be responsible for balancing the COST
of paying for nonsense vs. affording health care for the public.

Wouldn't that serve as INCENTIVE for healthier behavior
if it meant using taxes to pay for medical programs and facilities with the
same resources that would otherwise be wasted on bad behavior?

I wouldn't have a problem with that approach. And I wouldn't have a problem with a state democratically voting to keep drugs illegal if other states can vote the opposite way or a different way.

 

[emilynghiem]

Right now, legalizing everything would be bad.

I'm pretty libertarian about letting grown adults do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on other people's rights. However, I don't really support legalizing meth or heroin. When Gary Johnson was on Joe Rogan's podcast, he said he met with a lot of U.S. Judges, and they were unanimously against legalization of meth. They didn't seem to care about legalization of other drugs, but he didn't really go into much detail about that. He just said they wanted him to know that meth was very bad news, which I would agree.

What if abortion and drug policies could be addressed
under a THIRD type of law (besides civil or criminal)

What if there were "Health and Safety" policies decided democratically per state
(where Sensitive issues could be decided PER DISTRICT what THOSE
taxpayers want to fund as policies or not to be responsible for the costs)

And each state would be responsible for balancing the COST
of paying for nonsense vs. affording health care for the public.

Wouldn't that serve as INCENTIVE for healthier behavior
if it meant using taxes to pay for medical programs and facilities with the
same resources that would otherwise be wasted on bad behavior?

I wouldn't have a problem with that approach. And I wouldn't have a problem with a state democratically voting to keep drugs illegal if other states can vote the opposite way or a different way.

I don't mind as long as people PAY for the COSTS of those choices.
If you vote for something, that other people don't want to fund,
shouldn't the support base have to agree to take on the difference in costs?

Can you imagine giving taxpayers the choice of what to fund:

* millions going into research on marijuana (which might cure cancer but not addictions)
vs.
* medical R&D on how FREE spiritual healing has cured cancer, addictions, diabetes, etc.

Which do you think is going to cut the costs of disease, addiction and treatment?

So if states are held responsible for paying for health care costs out of the
SAME state budgets currently blown on failed prison/mental health program disasters,
which avenue do you think the states can afford to invest in: more medications after the fact
to placate and warehouse wards of the stat for the rest of their lives at taxpayer expense,
or more prevention to reduce addictions and crime/costs related to that demand?

 

[Kosh]

Right now, legalizing everything would be bad.

I'm pretty libertarian about letting grown adults do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on other people's rights. However, I don't really support legalizing meth or heroin. When Gary Johnson was on Joe Rogan's podcast, he said he met with a lot of U.S. Judges, and they were unanimously against legalization of meth. They didn't seem to care about legalization of other drugs, but he didn't really go into much detail about that. He just said they wanted him to know that meth was very bad news, which I would agree.

Yes but some drugs can still affect you even after they have cleared your system..

Or some staying up all night doing drugs, their buzz wears off then the hop in 18 wheeler and go down the road.

There are many other affects to those drugs that are not accounted for in your scenarios.

 

[Kosh]

Option A:
Maintain the status quo for federal drug laws. Each state can pass whatever drug laws they want, but the federal government can still pick and choose which drug laws to enforce and which states/persons/dealers/etc. to go after, depending on which President/party is in office.

Option B:
Ramp up the war on drugs nationwide with even stiffer penalties and even more "draconian" anti-drug laws.

Option C:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs and raise taxes and/or allocate funds from other programs to pay for federal and/or state treatment for addiction. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option D:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs, but the government is not going to pay for addiction treatment or other medical procedures to treat any damage to your body that results from taking drugs. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option E:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs and raise taxes and/or allocate funds from other programs to pay for federal and/or state treatment for addiction. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option F:
Decriminalize and/or legalize all drugs, but the government is not going to pay for addiction treatment or other medical procedures to treat any damage to your body that results from taking drugs. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option G:
Completely leave drug policy up to each individual state. Get the federal government entirely out of drug policy. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option H:
Completely leave drug policy up to the federal government. No states rights when it comes to drug laws. Employers cannot discriminate against you for using drugs so long as you can competently do your job (i.e., surgeons and truck drivers can use drugs as long as they can still competently do their job).

Option I:
Completely leave drug policy up to each individual state. Get the federal government entirely out of drug policy. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option J:
Completely leave drug policy up to the federal government. No states rights when it comes to drug laws. Employers can discriminate against you for using drugs. Thus, if you fail a drug test for work, your employer has the right to fire you.

Option K:
Other. Describe your ideal drug policy.

No matter the course you will have addiction problems, so you need to know how to deal with that first before you can choose how to handle it.

Right now, legalizing everything would be bad.

That includes option A - leave it as it is.

We already have addiction problems. Making drugs illegal is not really changing that.

Yes but letting those with addiction problems have access to drugs that are now illegal will make the problem much, much worse!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Thinking about an implementation approach I'd probably start with something like the following:

1. Identify what substances to make legal/non-criminal.
2. Establish or facilitate creating an infrastructure for selling it and taxing it. (No Internet or mail order sales.)
   • I'd likely require it be purchased in stores only by credit card and by people who can show they are employed full time when they make a purchase. It just doesn't make sense to me that people who can't pay their bills or hold down a job should be allowed to buy it. If they can produce it on their own, well, they can, but that's a different matter. I'm not trying to stop all irresponsible use, but I would want to see some sort of reasonable but not grossly onerous constraints put in place. I think the constraints should be the same for all "illicit" substances.
   • I'd probably want to have an easily accessed database of users who've harmed others and prohibit those would be users from buying, using, being in the presence of or having possession of any addictive substance (drug/alcohol).
3. Designate all the tax revenue collected for drug sales (including alcohol and nicotine) be allocated to a fund having two uses:
   1. To provide healthcare treatment -- perhaps in the right situations, a modest degree of restitution as well -- to victims of drug users (abusers), and if there is anything left over,
   2. To provide rehab treatment/services to drug users.
4. If folks want to grow or produce their own materials to make the drugs for their own consumption, that's fine with me. Just as folks should be able to make their own clothes, build their own house, or whatever, they should be allowed to produce their own recreational drugs for their own consumption. Selling it to others is a different matter. I think if one wants to do that, one needs to do so as part of the authorized infrastructure....That is, they need to have a registered, licenses and physically existing place of business for doing so. It can be their house; I don't care about that. I care that they they have a business that keeps good records that can be audited, tracked, customers identified, etc. if and when the time for that to happen comes about.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Right now, legalizing everything would be bad.

I'm pretty libertarian about letting grown adults do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on other people's rights. However, I don't really support legalizing meth or heroin. When Gary Johnson was on Joe Rogan's podcast, he said he met with a lot of U.S. Judges, and they were unanimously against legalization of meth. They didn't seem to care about legalization of other drugs, but he didn't really go into much detail about that. He just said they wanted him to know that meth was very bad news, which I would agree.

What if abortion and drug policies could be addressed
under a THIRD type of law (besides civil or criminal)

What if there were "Health and Safety" policies decided democratically per state
(where Sensitive issues could be decided PER DISTRICT what THOSE
taxpayers want to fund as policies or not to be responsible for the costs)

And each state would be responsible for balancing the COST
of paying for nonsense vs. affording health care for the public.

Wouldn't that serve as INCENTIVE for healthier behavior
if it meant using taxes to pay for medical programs and facilities with the
same resources that would otherwise be wasted on bad behavior?

I wouldn't have a problem with that approach. And I wouldn't have a problem with a state democratically voting to keep drugs illegal if other states can vote the opposite way or a different way.

I don't mind as long as people PAY for the COSTS of those choices.
If you vote for something, that other people don't want to fund,
shouldn't the support base have to agree to take on the difference in costs?

Can you imagine giving taxpayers the choice of what to fund:

* millions going into research on marijuana (which might cure cancer but not addictions)
vs.
* medical R&D on how FREE spiritual healing has cured cancer, addictions, diabetes, etc.

Which do you think is going to cut the costs of disease, addiction and treatment?

So if states are held responsible for paying for health care costs out of the
SAME state budgets currently blown on failed prison/mental health program disasters,
which avenue do you think the states can afford to invest in: more medications after the fact
to placate and warehouse wards of the stat for the rest of their lives at taxpayer expense,
or more prevention to reduce addictions and crime/costs related to that demand?

I agree. I don't know which approach would be more effective to reduce addictions and costs, and I'm skeptical that any one approach would work for everyone or even a majority of people.

I generally feel like if you want to take all kinds of drugs and ruin your health, you should be allowed to; however, the state shouldn't have to come fix you and rescue you at taxpayer cost. But I'm also sympathetic to providing some access to treatment for those who really do seek it.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Right now, legalizing everything would be bad.

I'm pretty libertarian about letting grown adults do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on other people's rights. However, I don't really support legalizing meth or heroin. When Gary Johnson was on Joe Rogan's podcast, he said he met with a lot of U.S. Judges, and they were unanimously against legalization of meth. They didn't seem to care about legalization of other drugs, but he didn't really go into much detail about that. He just said they wanted him to know that meth was very bad news, which I would agree.

Yes but some drugs can still affect you even after they have cleared your system..

Or some staying up all night doing drugs, their buzz wears off then the hop in 18 wheeler and go down the road.

There are many other affects to those drugs that are not accounted for in your scenarios.

Agreed.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Thinking about an implementation approach I'd probably start with something like the following:

1. Identify what substances to make legal/non-criminal.
2. Establish or facilitate creating an infrastructure for selling it and taxing it. (No Internet or mail order sales.)
   • I'd likely require it be purchased in stores only by credit card and by people who can show they are employed full time when they make a purchase. It just doesn't make sense to me that people who can't pay their bills or hold down a job should be allowed to buy it. If they can produce it on their own, well, they can, but that's a different matter. I'm not trying to stop all irresponsible use, but I would want to see some sort of reasonable but not grossly onerous constraints put in place. I think the constraints should be the same for all "illicit" substances.
   • I'd probably want to have an easily accessed database of users who've harmed others and prohibit those would be users from buying, using, being in the presence of or having possession of any addictive substance (drug/alcohol).
3. Designate all the tax revenue collected for drug sales (including alcohol and nicotine) be allocated to a fund having two uses:
   1. To provide healthcare treatment -- perhaps in the right situations, a modest degree of restitution as well -- to victims of drug users (abusers), and if there is anything left over,
   2. To provide rehab treatment/services to drug users.
4. If folks want to grow or produce their own materials to make the drugs for their own consumption, that's fine with me. Just as folks should be able to make their own clothes, build their own house, or whatever, they should be allowed to produce their own recreational drugs for their own consumption. Selling it to others is a different matter. I think if one wants to do that, one needs to do so as part of the authorized infrastructure....That is, they need to have a registered, licenses and physically existing place of business for doing so. It can be their house; I don't care about that. I care that they they have a business that keeps good records that can be audited, tracked, customers identified, etc. if and when the time for that to happen comes about.

I generally agree with most of that in principle. But I think the more restrictions you put on it, the more it'll drive it back underground into the black market again. For serious addicts, they're going to get their fix one way or the other, either legally or illegally.