be it chocolate, coffee, wine, or [heroin]
ensure that those chemicals are available safely and taxed appropriately
While I agree that prohibition has proven time and again to be a terrible thing, I'd also argue that some drugs are so dangerous in small doses that sale should never be sanctioned. Still, I would not argue in favor of strict punishments for sale nor use, especially. Issues of sale should come with punishments similar to improper business practices--tax evasion, fraud, etc--based on the scope and scale of the transactions.
As you point out, people often seek certain substances because at some level they feel it will make things better. The improvement they seek may be proportional to the strength of the substance, meaning those seeking out street drugs are probably also in the most dire straits. From that perspective, punishment seems quite cruel--kicking a person when they're already down.
Some people do drugs occasionally just for the fun of it, not expecting any improvement.
My stance is that I would like to see most drugs legal to consume, it is stupid and evil to put people in prison because they put something in their mouth (oversimplifying but it is what it is). As for the selling part of things, I would like for state to sell the drugs with 100% purity, at high prices and with some kind of programs to go along with that that handle addicted users (they would be addicted in any case, this way you can at least track them, and do something humane and not put them in prison). But if that would be the case, that you can buy drugs legally, I would enforce even stricter punishments for illegal sellers.
Depending on the way drugs are sold, penalties could, and probably should go as high as involuntary manslaughter.
Dealers often misrepresent what they sell, cutting with toxic chemicals, lying about purity or even selling an entire different product. With drugs as potent as opiates, it could mean death. In fact, I think this is the leading cause of death by drug use.
These practices should be much more penalized than just selling the drug, even if both are illegal. Just like armed robbery is more severely punished than shoplifting.
I see a need for a government to facilitate access to clean good quality drugs, taxing them, and providing the support mechanisms to enable people to come off those drugs.
Just to emphasize, Portugal didn't legalize any drugs. It decriminalized drug use and possession.
Which mean you are not going to be judged and sent to prison, but you can still get fined, especially if you refuse the treatments they suggest.
Drug trafficking, defined as possession of more than the average dose for 10 days is still a crime.
> The thing is you can make it illegal to sell without being illegal to consume.
If they make it illegal to sell, then the state must sell it. Otherwise it just doesn't work. Why should people acting legally need to buy from criminals?
If you look at Portugal, who has had the most success in reducing drugs, they decriminalized drugs. Which meant they kept them illegal, but if caught it was equivalent of parking ticket fine, but also if person hit a threshold of too many fines, there was drug addiction therapy required. Decriminalization removes the excessive fines, time in jail, and removes the criminal record black mark.
Atlanta GA has decriminalized marijuana this year. If caught it's a $60 fee only. Previously it was $1000, up to 6 months in jail, and a criminal record.
This decriminalization should be applied to all drugs. This has been proven to work, everywhere it has been tried.
As you point out, people often seek certain substances because at some level they feel it will make things better. The improvement they seek may be proportional to the strength of the substance, meaning those seeking out street drugs are probably also in the most dire straits. From that perspective, punishment seems quite cruel--kicking a person when they're already down.