The Economist takes a stand:
''Next week ministers from around the world gather in Vienna to set international drug policy for the next decade. Like first-world-war generals, many will claim that all that is needed is more of the same. In fact the war on drugs has been a disaster, creating failed states in the developing world even as addiction has flourished in the rich world. By any sensible measure, this 100-year struggle has been illiberal, murderous and pointless. That is why The Economist continues to believe that the least bad policy is to legalise drugs.''
I like the use of the term ''least bad''; that pretty much captures it. It's not that legalizing drugs would be good. It's that using the money spent by states to wage a semi-war against their own citizens- particularly those ones actually suffering from addiction- to educate about drugs and treat addicts for addiction would be less bad. It would also answer better the question of ''public health'', which has always been the pretense for the creeping authoritarian militarism of the ''war on drugs''. However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for ''legalization'' to get past the police lobbies and those of our fellow bed-wetters who can't sleep at night without the government watching over them.