🚀 go-pugleaf

The war against drugs is lost. Any eternal war is lost. And there is
no way to win this war. Why? Because you *CANNOT* prove you are not a
drug addict. You *CAN* prove if you are an alcoholic or not, simply by
taking a drink and then refraining, with a bottle in front of you. But
how do you prove that you are not a dryag addict? By taking drugs and
then refraining? Argggggg! No way!

What if your old high school friends conspire and tell everybody you
DID use drugs extensively during you youth. Signed testimonies. Yo are
done! You are now an ex addict, subject to `side effects` (see thread
of the sae name under my name). At least WE ARE ALL EX-ADDICTS!!!!
That`s the most we can say and prove by NOT taking drugs. But at any
moment the POLICE can say: `he/she uses drugs` What do you do? You are
driving alone in a highway. You are stopped. By the time you come back
home, there is already a report that you use drugs. What comes next in
your life????

Or smebody, even a policeman, puts some quantity of a substance in
your car, or some powder on your suit, or in your house... How do
youprove it is not yours? By being tortured until it is evident it is
not yours??? BACK TO THE MIDDLE AGES!!!

And worse, yourlife suddenly grinds to a halt and goes to the sink:
somebody spreads the rumor you used drugs. Soon all are convinced of
it. Goodbye opportunities, etc. It may be a policeman who does this,
maybe with reason (can`t prove you comitted a crime and wants to pin
you down, whether he is correct or not, or just because...). Goodbye
life.

But for the police and judges it makes their life easy. Say drugs, the
magic word: you`re done. Anything can be justified by saying drugs.
Mexico wants to extradite somebody? Just needs to fabricate evidence
saying you are a drug seller. Wham!!! There you go...

Now, we don`t want drugs to be sold inthe corner store. No way! Would
happened like with tobacco. So, the only *rational* solution is to
CONTROL THEM.

The proposal consists in emitting a card similar to voting credentials
with picture. You are entitled to buy weekly quantities, under medical
supervision. You can buy from the government or speicalized dealers.
The card is given free of charge by the government, even by the police
itself! The federal police, the DEA. You commit a crime? NO CARD???
Double penalty. A card? How much did you take, which drugs? Is it
enough to commit a crime?, etc.

You would submit to psychiatrical evaluation pryor and... for the rest
of yourlife, or while youhave your card. Age requirements are
enforced. Who would trade the card? Nobody. You pay for it maybe even
with taxes, etc. You can assure quality. No accidents. Not enough for
you? Treatment.

This solution has the advantage that it would expose all players, both
producers and cosummers. Once you ask for a card, you`re marked for
life. Essentially. But then, if well controlled, once you give back
your card, you are free from the stigma. Again, no card? Double
penalty. It would work as a deterrent to curiosity. It would be
accompanied with real information as to the effects, pros and cons, as
all things have two sides.

Budgets need not be lost by the police. Essentially, they would
control it, the federal police, that is. Other resources would go to
treatments, research, information, special gatherings, etc.

Not ALL drugs need be treated this way. Temptatively, only marihuana
and maybe the most innocuous of chemical drugs would be allowed. Doses
would make medical sense. Other drugs would be equally illegal.

Of course, the other solution is WORLDWIDE erradication. Dope and coke
and mushrooms. Chemical drugs would be treated as they are now. My
hypothesis is that most people use drugs other than pot because of its
inavailability. A trick of sellers would be to sell dope and once they
have buyers, artificially reduce supply and augment supply of other
drugs. This trick would no lowork. Many sellers and producers would
opt to go through the governmental, official channel. There would be a
residue of criminals: those would be hunted as usual. But, most
important, addicts wuld be identified. Hypothesis is that few people
NOT CURRENTLY USING drugs would opt NOT TO USE DRUGS. There is a
mystery to them, making them attractive for rebel types and others.
Users would speak more freely of their effects, good and bad, before
they end up intratment for abuse. Abuse would be dminished a lot...

Why I write this? Because it makes sense. And because I may be
incriminated thus.

Any comments about the path of adjustment of prices? I guess they
would remain about the same; the excess in price due to intermediarism
would go to the government as taxes. Other regimes may be possible.