I always assumed that "legalize drugs" arguments came from people who wanted to do their hobby legally.
It was people who were fighting the rights of drug users.
I didn't particularly see a reason why they shouldn't have their way, but I didn't see it as tragic that they didn't.

As I've come to learn about gang culture (mainly from Ross Kemp documentaries) I've come from a different angle.
Gangsters ruin communities and lives with their gun crime.
Their gun crime is funded by the money they make on black markets.
And while you can lock up individual gangsters, so long as there is a market/opportunity, there will be people who try and fill it.
That is, you can pluck out individual weeds but so long as the soil is fertile there will always be fresh ones growing in their place.
I want to starve them off their income.
I want to see these MoFos put out of business.

Governments put a lot into trying to destroy the business.
The army is continually fighting drug barons in places like Colombia and Afghanistan, but this isn't solving the problem.
The drugs are still getting through, the market is thriving, criminals and drug lords are getting rich and powerful at the expense of the people they tread all over on the way.
America tried to ban alcohol a similar way back in the 1920s and failed in a similar way.
I think that a more cost effective approach is required.

Here's what I propose:
1) Softer drugs be regulated
"Softer" drugs such as cannabis and speed be regulated the same way alcohol and cigarettes currently are.
They would be sold with appropriate restrictions in place.

2) Harder drugs be nationalized
"Harder" drugs such as heroin and crack would be nationalized - only government clinics would be able to sell it.
(I'm writing from England where the government runs the NHS)
They would sell the drugs, but in environments where they could advise the users if necessary and offer them treatments to break addictions.


The hoped-for consequences
Dealers in soft drugs would either need to legitimize their business or go bust.
Dealers in hard drugs would lose business altogether.
The legal distributors would be able to undercut the prices of the black market, who would still have the pressure of the police coming after them.
This would make the drugs market less of an opportunity for gangs, and less money would be coming in to fund warfare between rival factions.
What's more, the economy would no longer lose out on the money that drug users currently spend on black market goods.

Possible drawbacks
There is the drawback that it would make drugs more socially acceptable so usage would increase.
We already see enough problems with people abusing alcohol without adding more narcotics into the mix.
That said, if we believe in freedom then getting the law involved isn't the answer.
We should be more interested in encouraging people to make rational decisions for themselves.
Alcoholism, gambling, drug addiction, obesity, these are all down to bad lifestyle decisions, decisions that people need to make for themselves.
Finding ways to improve people's own judgement on doing what's good for them is where the answer lies.



So am I preaching basic common sense here or is there a glaring error in my reasoning?