What exactly makes you think any other drug would be different?
This makes sense, since a highly regulated substance is de-facto illegal if it is unobtainable by the vast majority of its target market.
It does seem like the war on drugs could be fought more by addressing those that are supposed to be fighting it and removing corruption. Perhaps huge pay increases and bonuses for turning in people that attempt to bribe?
Our best example of a good way to go about reducing the drug trade is to go the way of Portugal.
The key word here is "transits". Every other country in Central America, and some in northern South America are part of that "transit" too. Mexican just happens, to its bad luck, to be next to the biggest consumer.
Nobody is arguing to have cocaine accesible by kids at the grocery store. The argument is to legalize it to regulate it and, as someone below commented, to bring the prices down so is no longer such a profitable business.
Sincerely, the Market Economics Fairy!
(Full disclosure: I'm just borrowing this character because it's suddenly relevant.)
If we start banning substances rationally, wouldn't cigarettes top the list.
The only things that should be "banned" are those that are so intrinsically harmful they cause severe, immediate, measurable harm to both the abuser and society.
There aren't many drugs that people consume that qualify for this standard since to be able to continuously abuse something it can't kill you the first try.
Almost nobody does though because there is a legal form from which to get the high that is a minute fraction of what is required to kill you.
Firstly, substances can be used without 'abuse'. Alcohol is a good example of this, you probably know many users who never abuse it. Alcohol most certainly can cause severe, immediate harm to the abuser an society.
Why ban substances based on harm? Why not just enforce the rules around the actual harm?
For example, enforce driving under the influence and don't ban alcohol.
Is there really a need to ban things like heroin which have a high rate of causing harm to the user? It seems like it is more of social and community issue. Throwing that person in jail is hardly improving their life.
In terms of priorities it should be avoiding harm to others, such as not driving under the influence as you suggest, and then avoiding harm to the individual, as might be the case with a chronic alcoholic.
As a note, heroin isn't as inherently harmful as it's made out to be, but, like other things, so long as it's illegal it will really only be popular with the more hard-core drug users. It was legal before, after all.
I'm not sure about the USA, but in Canada, the number of people who use marijuana and the number of people who use tobacco are almost equal, despite only one of those substances being legal. That seems to indicate to me that the laws have no impact on consumption or the limitation thereof.
If you are worried about the effects of people using drugs, you are already witnessing them.
I don't see how you're going to stand any chance of causing more problems than that.
Cocaine has gotten cheap enough that anybody can try it if they want to. In the 40 year war on drugs, they've had a nearly unlimited budget and all the time that could ever be needed, things have only continued to get worse. The Cartels have already taken over every city in America, and they literally control portions of the south west. It's time to neutralize them, and the only way to do that is by destroying their profit centers with 'free market' competition that they can never beat (government regulated ala alcohol).
Only the government can create organized crime. And it's always through prohibitions of activities that should be legal.
Typical example: Criminals lure naive poor country girls with prospects of lots of money and a job elsewhere. As soon as they arrive to the destination country, they are held captive (they steal everything they own, and use violence) and then used as prostitutes. I fail to see government help in this scheme.
Do you think that the cops don't know about Backpage or other prostitution outlets? Do you think that law enforcement is impervious to corruption?
My point is even assuming incorruptible law enforcement, these outlets would still exist, might last less if you wish.
From there to saying it's a government sponsored slavery is a big step.
If it were legal, it could be taxed and regulated like anything else. Most people are OK with letting others do what they want with their own body. It's certain puritanical, tyrannical, authoritarian and powerful government factions that don't allow that.
Same addict in two societies.
Society 1) Drugs are regulated in pretty much the same ways they are in the US, and because of this prices are high. The addict may have a family or maybe not, but has bills to pay. He spends all his money on drugs leading to neglect of his bills. He gets arrested and is now unable to hold down a job. This leads into other problems after he gets out of legal trouble. He now has to steal to obtain the drugs.
Society 2) Drugs are largely decriminalized and cheap enough that a days supply for any addict don't break the bank. He doesn't lose his job because of legal ramifications and he just spends all his free time doing cocaine. He doesn't have to steal to obtain the drugs.
[1]http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/2006451...
The first link provided actually says they are the largest foreign supplier of marijuana.
Alcohol sales are in the billions, why aren't the cartels making money from that? Because legitimate corporations are there to supply it already. (You can also produce your own alcohol at home, but most people don't.)