all contributions welcome

the war on drugs is, in effect, a war on two fronts. it is a war against the decline of a civilization, and it is simultaneously a war on personal freedom and development.

first and foremost, we must needs be aware that there are many factors in the decline of a civilization, and the effect of drugs should not overshadow all the other things that lead to extreme sensual pleasure or heightened spiritual or personal awareness that are just as dangerous.
[i refer to leary's rapture circuit]

the most defining and worrying result of drug use, to quote leary, is the "anti-evolutionary and regressive [...] drop-out philosophy".
what our civilization needs to maintain its superiority are goals, advancement incentives and defensive mechanisms (both physical and cultural).
without conflict or external environmental threats, these three things are extremely difficult to generate enthusiasm for. [i refer to george orwell - 1984]
in this day and age, one doesn't need to look far to find people who don't use drugs and who don't care much for the welfare of society as a whole - we are already self-absorbed, hedonistic, complacent and on our way out.

on a different note, the war on drugs is itself detrimental to our civilization in a number of ways.

1. as a drug-consuming species we will always find alternatives, and the medical and pharmaceutical industries do a wonderful job of diagnosing fantasy illnesses while pushing the pills to heal them. i refer here to stress, depression and adhd in particular - these are completely rational, natural, justified responses to the crazy and inhuman modernity we've created, not some defect that needs to be fixed.

2. the war on drugs - just as the prohibition of the 20's did - has redefined ordinary, participating citizens as "criminals" and given rise to a global underground network of illegal producers, smugglers and distributors.

3. conventional wisdom dictates that "prevention is better than cure", but we have seen that this is not the case with drugs. in fact, the dutch have demonstrated that on the whole, control rather than prevention works better.

when drug use isn't as extraordinary, the normative members of society are less enthusiastic in their consumption. [someone once confided in me that the reason that cocaine is so addictive is because it's a naughty thing to do. i think that holds for most recreational drugs]

the results of this phenomenon are that holland has less of a problem with drugs than its "warmongering" neighbours, while at the same time not wasting valuable resources on frustrating the drug industry. that's taxpayers' money being saved - lots of it.

4. the war on drugs inflates the prices by a tremendous amount - providing incentive for criminal activity on the parts of those less affluent elements. it also introduces unnecessary risk to users as the manufacturers have no reason to produce high quality merchandise.

to wit - there's no underground equivalent of the fda.

5. at present there is no country that profits from other drugs as they do from two of the most dangerous (short and long term) drugs on the market: cigarettes and alcohol. not only could our drug habits alleviate tax burdens, but sales to countries less sophisticated could turn into an immensely profitable enterprise.

6. a requirement of the war against drugs is massive disinformation that renders open and fair debate exceptionally difficult. this has created a major barrier of distrust between the relevant authorities and users who simply know better.

the above points make it fairly obvious - as it was to nixon's advisors* - that the war on drugs is a wretchedly thought up and awfully executed plan of action. unfortunately, though, we are now in a position wherein we cannot simply stop its insanity and move on.

* too many links!
war on drugs a colossal failure
politics of failure
the nixon administration
avoidable idiocy

here is the moment i've been leading up to. i hereby propose the following:

a) a complete revision of all disseminated information regarding drugs and drug usage, with an emphasis on the real dangers maintained but not at the expense of practical guidance; no exaggeration nor hearsay may enter into the discourse without causing avoidable issues.

b) complete legalization of recreational drugs, with precautionary measures taken to protect distribution channels and facilitate governmental control.

c) [and this is the kicker] drugs should be made available only to those members of society who can demonstrate that they are contributing to the welfare of the state, whether this contribution be through extra taxes, community service, national service or general philanthropic activities.

d) the same restrictions that currently apply for alcohol consumption (minimum legal age, requirements to be sober while on the job) should apply for any recreational drug.

i do not believe that these actions will bring about a utopian society, but they most certainly would do less damage to our civilization as a whole. in addition to alleviating the considerable strain on state coffers and reducing criminal activity, we could incentivize public participation and reintegrate a vast number of alienated members of our society.

not only that, and just as importantly: we could return a sense of freedom to those members of our society who use drugs. this is, after all, what we all claim to fight for.

for more details in an entertaining format: the union - the business behind getting high (available online)

---
on a side note:
if drugs do change people's personalities over the long term, then the effects that i've seen indicate that marijuana and lsd should be made mandatory... but that's another story, for another time :)