>The argument put forward above is that stopping the war on drugs just because we can't win is equivalent to stopping the 'war' on (for example) burglary.
I do agree that stopping the war on X differs greatly when X is something that deserves stopping in and of itself compared to when X is not inherently harmful, but closely tied to things that are (though I do think that different people will classify certain actions into other groups, for example some people will say some drugs are so bad that they deserve to be stopped in and of themselves).
>> some people will say some drugs are so bad that they deserve to be stopped in and of themselves
They will indeed. And to them I say "good luck with that!"
I agree with the sentiment there, nobody should be encouraging the use of heroin, for example. But we've tried banning it and it hasn't actually helped all that much. I think it's time to admit that's failed and investigate what we can do, with a close eye on the evidential and scientific basis of our actions, to reduce harm as much as possible.
Stamping our feet and threatening people hasn't made them stop. Lets find the best way we can to keep more people from getting there, to keep the harms to them as minimal as possible, and to make society better for the rest of us while we're at it.
But there are other forms of bans that could be tried. Ban production and selling but not purchasing. Or ban purchasing, but massively change the penalty to something more help. Even keeping all our current bans in place and just redoing prison to be about rehabilitation instead of retribution could result in a positive change.
Part of the problem isn't even the bans, but the money being made off of the war that leads to things like prisons lobbying for three strike rules and other horrendous laws.
I would agree that we should look at it from an evidence base and if those options look lile the best ones then that's great.
The thing that winds me up the most is the prevalent attitude of kneejerk banning of anything of everything, damn the consequences and fuck the evidence.
I do agree that stopping the war on X differs greatly when X is something that deserves stopping in and of itself compared to when X is not inherently harmful, but closely tied to things that are (though I do think that different people will classify certain actions into other groups, for example some people will say some drugs are so bad that they deserve to be stopped in and of themselves).