Question 1:  If the primary concern with drug laws is the well-being of the populace as a whole is there any evidence that legalizing drugs would create additional problems beyond what we have now?

Question 2: Does the government have the right to make choices for an individual?

My answers:

1) As far as I can see the exact opposite has been the case in the past with prohibition as the primary example but also with the war on drugs itself which the former was a historic failure and the latter not much better.  

2) This is the crux of the matter for a lot of people (myself included).  If the government can tell you not to do drugs for your own sake or even in the larger sense for the good of the nation then where does that power end?  Couldn't they also tell you that you cannot have children because the population must be brought under control for "the common good"?  As soon as you make the choices of the individual subject to government approval in one area you open the line of reasoning that this would be acceptable in other areas and as the graph below illustrates the politicians are FAR more willing to take power than we are willing to give it.

I am vehemently opposed to doing drugs as a personal choice.  I despise them for what I have seen them do to friends and family both, but I don't presume that this gives me, the government, or anyone the power to make those choices for people.  Influence them, convince them not to, etc...but as soon as you take away a person's right to free will on the matter I have a serious problem with it.

Eh, I'll just copy and paste something I wrote on drugs:

The use of drugs should never result in a prison sentence or a fine; instead if someone is caught with drugs for personal use, then that person should only be offered rehabilitation. Parents of young children will have to go through rehabilitation, or risk losing their child, whilst everyone else will retain the rights to reject the rehab offered.

Similar schemes have been introduced in Portugal, and it has had many staggering results:

- Rehabilitation was found to be cheaper than incarceration.
- Illegal drug use amongst teens has decreased.
- The number of HIV cases caused by sharing dirty needles decreased.
- The number of people seeking help for their drug problem doubled.
- Deaths related to heroin and other drugs more than halved.

These are the results of drug use becoming less of a taboo (which makes “rebellious” teens less likely to start), and so people stopped using them underground, and society became far more open to drugs.

I really couldn't say it any better than this.

Well, I am one for progress.  Anyone in their right mind should support progress.  But change isnt synomynous with progress.

Actually that is a big part of the problem, drugs aren't seen as taboo by the people who get involved with them.  For most it is a way to fit in and belong to a group.  From a social engineering standpoint (a field I'm not overly fond of but whatever) the ideal would be for drug use to be something that would alienate you from a group not help to fit in.

A great example I can think of, and maybe this was a regional thing, but in my area it used to be really popular and "cool" to have a beeper when they were prevalent...but when cell phones started taking over it was "pshaw...you still use a beeper?".  Granted beepers aren't addictive but today nobody even considers buying a beeper ..the point being that if you don't ever get it you can't get hooked.  Perhaps a bit of a convoluted example but again..whatever =P

There are other types of users of course, those who want an escape for example, but in their case the drug use is a symptom and not a cause so addressing it requires a different approach.

As for the plan you present I agree rehabilitation is far and away the best choice with "drug crimes".  But people have to want help or it does absolutely no good.  At the very least it would be a large step in the right direction though.

Well, you have to balance it out.

If drugs became less of a taboo, more people will be willing to come forward about their problem and get help, the use of drugs will also become safer, on the flip side, more people are likely to start.

I think some research would be required to see which will happen more. As it stands Portugal currently has the lowest amount of weed users in the EU, which is the most liberal country in the EU with drugs.

I'd be interesting in finding out statistics about drug use in the Netherlands which is also quite liberal in its drug policies.

Agree wholeheartedly. I'm still unsure how it would be brought into practice but it needs to be done. Marijuana shouldn't be too difficult and could be regulated like alcohol but the idea of a company profiting from selling heroin is kind of disturbing.

Well, I'd rather a British firm profiting from heroin, creating jobs and bringing in taxation revenue, then al-qaeda.

But I'd rather neither, tbh.

True, but also true is the fact that not everyone agrees on what constitutes progress.

Barack Obama