By Keith Preston June 19, 2023

The issue of drug legalization has long been a subject of debate, with varying perspectives and concerns surrounding its implementation. This essay aims to present a moderate plan for drug legalization that addresses key considerations such as criminal behavior, racial implications, public safety, and potential risks associated with the drug trade. By analyzing the existing challenges and proposing a balanced approach, this plan seeks to minimize harm while exploring alternatives to the current prohibitionist policies.

While social factors such as poverty and racism are often associated with criminal behavior, it is essential to recognize that criminal actions extend beyond these variables. Individuals from white, middle-class, and upper-class backgrounds also engage in illegal activities, albeit in different forms that are harder to detect. Therefore, attributing criminal behavior solely to social factors overlooks the complexities of criminality and the need for comprehensive approaches in addressing illegal actions.

Critiques of the “War on Drugs” often highlight its racial implications. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that individuals from diverse racial backgrounds, including African-American politicians, clergy, and citizens, have supported these policies. This indicates that the problematic aspects of the “War on Drugs” extend beyond racism and require a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved.

One concern surrounding drug legalization is the impact on countries affected by drug cartels. Witnessing firsthand the devastation caused by cartels in Mexico, I understand the ethical implications of inflicting suffering on poor nations due to the inability to control drug habits. Therefore, any plan for drug legalization must consider strategies to minimize the influence of criminal syndicates and prioritize public safety.

To ensure responsible drug legalization, a trial period should be considered before implementing nationwide or even local policies. This would allow for the evaluation of potential outcomes, impacts, and necessary adjustments. Additionally, safeguards must be in place to prevent large pharmaceutical companies from exploiting the drug trade for financial gain and addicting individuals.

Drawing on successful models such as the Netherlands, a moderate plan for drug legalization should focus on tightly regulated markets for soft drugs, while maintaining zero tolerance for public nuisances and criminal behavior associated with hard drug use. This approach enables the provision of opportunities for serious addicts to improve their behavior while ensuring public safety and minimizing harm.

Recognizing that drug addiction varies based on individual characteristics, including personality, psychology, and physiology, is crucial in designing effective policies. A moderate plan for drug legalization should account for this diversity and incorporate tailored approaches to address the varying needs and challenges associated with addiction.

It is important to acknowledge that drug prohibition has historical connections with domestic “racial control” policies and has been utilized as a tool of US imperialism. While the modern “war on drugs” cannot be solely explained by racism, it is evident that these policies have disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic communities. Addressing the racial disparities associated with drug prohibition should be a priority in any moderate plan for drug legalization.

A moderate plan for drug legalization should strike a balance between addressing social concerns, public safety, and the harms caused by drug prohibition. By adopting a tightly regulated system that differentiates between soft and hard drugs, while considering public health and minimizing criminal influence, it is possible to move toward responsible drug policy. This plan would involve licensing for drug sellers, stringent regulations on advertising, and the establishment of non-profit outlets for the sale of hard drugs. It would also prioritize public safety, ensuring that criminal activities related to drug use, such as assault or driving under the influence, remain punishable offenses.

While concerns about large pharmaceutical companies taking control of the drug trade are valid, this moderate plan aims to prevent such monopolization by implementing a combination of government, private, and nonprofit approaches. The profit motive would be removed, and price controls would be put in place to ensure that hard drugs are sold at cost rather than for profit. This would help mitigate the risk of corporate exploitation and focus on harm reduction rather than financial gain.

It is essential to acknowledge that complete prohibition of all drugs is not a viable solution, as evidenced by the ongoing issues associated with the “War on Drugs.” Instead, a regulated approach that allows for the legal sale and distribution of drugs can help eradicate the power of illegal cartels and reduce the associated violence and social harm. By implementing a moderate plan for drug legalization, society can move toward a more rational and effective drug policy. A moderate drug legalization plan would be something like this:

First, I would point out that the supposedly “liberal” drug policies in places like Seattle, the Bay Area, or LA at present are not “drug legalization” per se. The standard prohibition system is in place there as well, but local authorities simply choose not to enforce the law in some cases. Genuine drug legalization would mean that the production, transportation, distribution, and sale of drugs are done by legitimate entities or individuals, not cartels and illegal market entrepreneurs. The drug market would be dominated by conservative businesspeople, trained professionals, and/or public administrators, not reckless, improvident sociopaths.

A legal drug market would not mean drug users are entitled to a free-for-all. Robbing or assaulting others while under the influence of drugs would remain crimes, as would driving under the influence, vandalism of public or private property, furnishing drugs to minors, dispossessing ordinary citizens of public areas, violating standards of public decency (like defecating on the sidewalk), and other comparable antisocial behaviors.

A legal drug market would not be a “Wild West” where anything goes. There are options besides total prohibition and “anarcho-capitalism.” Presumably, drugs could and should be regulated for content, safety, purity, correct labeling, health warnings, full disclosure, truthful advertising, etc. Drug vendors could not operate in open-air markets or sell their products in vending machines. Nor would hard drugs be served in bars, restaurants, or places of entertainment like sports stadiums.

Another critical issue rarely discussed is that prohibition seals off the market for softer drugs. There is no black market for coca leaves, smokable opium, or coca and/or opium-based teas, and the market for natural hallucinogens like psilocybin mushrooms, peyote, or mescal cactus is very limited. The reason is that these drugs are hard to transport, and they’re not as likely to produce large numbers of addicts immediately. This means softer drugs are less profitable to cartels, just as there was no market for light beer and wine coolers during alcohol prohibition.

Having studied these issues for years, I believe it is necessary to eradicate the ability of illegal cartels to generate massive profits through the illegal narcotics market. This can only be done through full legalization of the drug trade. However, this does not mean we want to give carte blanche to pharmaceutical companies to move into the market for currently illegal drugs. Having examined potential models of drug legalization, I think the best model would be a combination of government, private, and nonprofit approaches that are oriented toward removing the profit motive to addict anyone to drugs, separating the market for hard and soft drugs, and ending mass incarceration for drug law violations.

It would be best to have a tightly regulated commercial market for softer drugs like marijuana, hashish, natural hallucinogens, smokable opium, coca leaves, and coca and opium-based beverages. These drugs would be regulated like alcohol and tobacco are regulated at present (e.g., age purchasing requirements, drug businesses zoned out of residential or school districts, prohibition of DUI, etc.)

I believe that most “hard drugs” like injectable heroin, powdered cocaine, and manufactured hallucinogens like LSD and MDMA should be legal, but only on a non-profit basis and under tightly controlled circumstances. For example, such drugs might be restricted to “brown paper bag” sales only (like pornography in the pre-Internet era) and only in non-profit outlets (the specifics of it could vary, but it would probably be something like a non-profit version of the state liquor stores in some states, or non-profit medical clinics reimbursed by the government). The sale of hard drugs would be price-controlled to ensure they are sold only at cost and not for profit.

Some drugs (like fentanyl or methamphetamine) may be immediately dangerous enough to justify total prohibition (similar to the prohibition of moonshine or 100-proof grain alcohol in some states). With other legal, soft drugs being available and a tightly controlled means of purchasing at least some hard drugs, only the most reckless and addiction-prone people would be attracted to the remaining prohibited drugs. Circumstances of that kind would have to be dealt with on a situational basis.

A critically important issue would be licensing for drug sellers. In the case of commercial market sales of soft drugs, only licensed vendors would be allowed to sell such drugs (like the liquor licensing system in many states now). Failure to comply with public regulations would result in the loss of such licenses. The non-profit sale of hard drugs would be even more tightly regulated. A condition of receiving a “drug vendor” license would be an agreement that commercial advertising is prohibited.

Another option would be to require a “drug user license” for users of at least some drugs (e.g., legal hard drugs). I wouldn’t want to overreach and require a license for marijuana or softer drugs, but a “heroin user license” might be prudent. Such a license could be revoked if a person was demonstrated to be a drug abuser in a way that caused public nuisances or potentially threatened the safety of others (for example, a cocaine user arrested for domestic violence). Under such circumstances, drugs could only be consumed under medical supervision (like a methadone clinic).

This moderate plan for drug legalization is compatible with mainstream institutions and ideologies because it focuses on a pragmatic and evidence-based approach to drug policy rather than advocating for radical or revolutionary changes. By proposing a combination of government, private, and nonprofit approaches, the plan aligns with the existing framework of governance and regulation. It recognizes the need for licensing, regulations, and accountability, which are fundamental aspects of mainstream institutions.

The plan acknowledges the importance of public safety and the need to protect communities from the potential harms associated with drug use. It does not promote a free-for-all or anarchy but instead emphasizes the implementation of regulations and restrictions to ensure responsible drug consumption. This approach aligns with mainstream ideologies that prioritize public order and safety.

Additionally, the moderate plan addresses the concerns of ordinary citizens who may be apprehensive about the potential risks of drug legalization. By highlighting the need for strict regulations, harm reduction strategies, and limitations on public nuisances, the plan seeks to strike a balance between personal liberties and societal well-being. It acknowledges that drug legalization should not lead to a disregard for public norms or the erosion of social cohesion.

The plan recognizes the existing role of law enforcement and the criminal justice system in dealing with drug-related issues. By emphasizing the importance of rehabilitation programs and using potential punishment as a means to incentivize treatment, it acknowledges the role of these institutions in addressing drug addiction and public safety concerns.

The moderate plan for drug legalization aligns with mainstream institutions and ideologies by proposing a practical and controlled approach that prioritizes public safety, regulation, and accountability. It does not require ordinary citizens to adopt radical or revolutionary political perspectives but rather aims to integrate responsible drug policies within the existing framework of governance.