Like many rear guard actions, the ongoing skirmishes in the so-called “war on drugs” will not affect the outcome; the war is over. Additionally, it would be hard to imagine that any policy could be worse than the current state of affairs. To wit: the additional criminality engaged in by addicts to fund their addictions and the accompanying glut of incarcerated felons are now features of the war rather than bugs. The economic costs to society are enormous, be they for law enforcement, health care (advanced diseases of both addicts and their victims of robbery/assault/murder), lost property or lost productivity. This is not to mention intangible losses - the corrosive effect on societal beliefs as to respect for the law and the sense of general safety and security. When a longstanding policy proves to be as disastrous as this one, reason suggests it is time to consider alternatives and conduct trials of alternative approaches. Measured against all this, what would be the downside?
It is empirically perfectly clear that addicts will continue to use regardless of legal penalties, at least as we assess them in the US (cf. a score of countries which prescribe the death penalty for what are here held to be relatively minor drug offenses). There are varying degrees of decriminalization. Tending toward my libertarian views, I would not only not prosecute users, I would make available, at cost, a supply of abused drugs under a sensibly-regulated system (maybe NASA could even elevate the priority of addiction to similar status as its avowed commitment to diversity and global warming!). Users would be supplied what they need/want, provided they register with the program and agree to not obtain drugs from any other source. Those who continue to sell - either drugs obtained through this system or any other drugs regardless of source - would face prompt, sure and severe punishment.
Now, this proposed system comes with the possibility of causing more addiction and losing some individuals to overdose. At the same time, pharmaceutical quality and sanitary injection would save lives by preventing various common infections associated with adulterated drugs and dirty needles. Careful observation and analysis of the experience with many addicts over some time period will permit adjustments and improvement of the program, particularly as to sensitive issues. For example, a most important question at the outset is: who can access he program? Can anyone who simply wants to use substances recreationally be eligible? Or, at least when first started, would the program accept only those who are already addicts? Many other policy questions will surely arise.
Individual incentives are an important consideration. Can society incentivize participants to limit/reduce the quantity they use? Can they be induced to enter a treatment center for detoxification (days) and subsequent treatment (weeks/months) followed by long-term recovery through participation in 12-step programs like AA or NA? If so, under what circumstance is coercion justified? Should financial incentives (payments for desired behavior, such as agreeing to random urine monitoring) be part of the armamentarium? Are there circumstances where negative consequences may be employed (limiting doses available, withholding of payments)? Are there circumstances in which coercion may be used to compel entry into treatment (e.g. a choice between treatment or prison)? Penalties for leaving treatment? And many more issues will surely arise…
In sum, it seems eminently reasonable to admit defeat in the “war on drugs” and beat a measured and calm withdrawal (the withdrawal from Afghanistan sets a low bar in that regard). There is much room for experimentation and the Founders suggested that laws need not be uniform or national in scope; the states may be “laboratories of the law”, they said. This same principle, I think, ought to apply to how to specifically act, once national decriminalization went into effect. As an initial matter, failure to decriminalize nationally would likely have a magnetic effect, drawing addicts disproportionately to those areas where decriminalization is in effect. After that, we should be capable of trying lots of imaginative policies and evolving a workable system empirically .