The issue of drugs can only be analysed on the grounds of negative externalities. Moral issues can have no bearing in an analysis of any policy matter. Governments are not moral bodies, but governance organisations: umpires or judges, not saints or preachers.

Morality can (and should)  drive our personal decisions but in relation to social policy we must be driven purely by an understanding of the negative externalities and the potential pathways for controlling these externalities.

This is one issue on which on has, from a theoretical perspective, not much more to say. Theory simply states: (a) analyse the magnitude of harm and (b) ensure accountability (or, as economists would say, ensure that the negative externality is internalised).

So this is an empirical question. I haven't had time to think through this issue carefully, by examining the empirical evidence in favour or against drug regulation. All I do know is that there is by now a crescendo being built up across the world by well known researchers in the fields of medicine and economics, as well as public policy experts, to ask us to question the way drug control policy has been so far designed.

The key question for the drug policy should be this: does the benefit from a policy exceed its costs? 

This begins the first of my potentially many posts which will analyse this issue in detail. I cannot form an opinion on this matter from first principles. This is, in the end, an empirical matter of costs vs. benefits; of externalities vs. internalisation; of freedom vs. accountability; of public choice analysis of the incentives of law enforcers and their capabilities.

COSTS OF THE DRUG POLICY AND ANALYSIS

Common Sense for Drug Policy (This organisation has extensive data on the costs of the current US drug policy)

Repost: Anyone Who Believes America is Winning the Drug War Must Be High

George Soros's work on drug policy

DRUGS DO LESS HARM THAN ALCOHOL

Alcohol more harmful than Heroin, Cocaine: Report (Discovery News, 1 Nov 2010)

DRUG PROHIBITION HAS NOT WORKED

Addicted to dangerous policy (Alex Wodak, The Australian January 15, 2011)

MAKE DRUGS LEGAL

Increasing voices for drug legalisation (Economist, 4 June 2011) 

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-05-13.asp

Bring drugs within the law (Economist, May 15, 1993)

The case for legalisation (Economist, Jul 26th 2001)

How to stop the drug wars (Economist, Mar 5th 2009)

Drugs, Violence and Economics (David Friedman)

MAKING DRUGS LEGAL DOESN'T MEAN TAKING DRUGS IS A GOOD THING 

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-05-19.asp

What happens when drugs are made legal

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/high-time-inside-amsterdams-coffee-shops-20111020-1m9pv.html

Portugal's 10 year experiment of decriminalisation (not making legal) of drugs. Detailed documentary and transcripts: http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/transcript/id/601381/n/Portugal-s-Fix  

REQUEST TO MY BLOG READERS

Please provide me with useful links on both sides of the argument – I'm still having very bad eye strain so I won't read them now, but when (hopefully) my eyes get better I'll spend time on this topic in preparation for my "official" view on this controversial and difficult policy matter. For the young liberals who visit this blog, this is a very good critical thinking research project for you to undertake.

Addendum, 30 Dec 2011

I'm slowing firming up to a view on drugs. As Friedman says, overeating is FAR more dangerous than drugs. Yet it is drugs that are banned. This ban, he calculates, leads to the USA government killing 10,000 Americans each year. And of course, many more thousands across the world. See this: