Victoria Hugo-Vidal reminds us that alcohol is an addictive and deadly substance (“Decriminalizing drug possession is the way forward,” Jan. 28). Yet, alcohol is legal and alcoholic beverages are regulated by the government. Why not the same approach with other recreational drugs? The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, argues persuasively for a shift from a war on drugs to a war on drug-related deaths.

Cato’s guiding principle is that personal liberty is the paramount political value. One Cato scholar argues that we all have a natural right to take into our bodies whatever we wish – “my body, my choice.” I don’t often agree with libertarians, but I find this hard to dispute.

Would it not be possible to provide safe places – indoors with restrooms and trash receptacles, and with someone responsible standing by – for people who cannot beat their addiction to consume their drugs? Consumption in public would be illegal, so the police could intervene, escorting offenders to the nearest safe place or dealing with them more harshly if necessary.

Would it not be possible for the government to regulate the manufacture of recreational drugs to be of certified purity, sterility and dose, eliminating unintended overdoses? Drugs could be priced to undersell the cartels and eliminate illegal trafficking. Consumption would be allowed but discouraged, and every effort would be made to get addicts who consent into treatment.

Many will be horrified by these suggestions. But prohibition didn’t work for alcohol, and it hasn’t worked for other drugs. It is time to put some radical ideas on the table.

Michael P. Bacon
Westbrook

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter: Hybrid cars are better than you realize

Next »

Letter: Make a plan to vote for Nikki Haley