Folow the buck!

Anyone who is against legalization is an authoritarian or has some sort of financial stake in the status quo. In these sorts of things it is always important to follow the buck.

Evidence

Do you have any?

Especaially from an Eastern perspective, I'd be interested to know where you get your information from.

Gwest, I lived in the West

Gwest, I lived in the West End for many, many years, so what I'm discussing is first-hand experience (but you already knew that, didn't you).

As for the record of past drug deaths arising from bad drugs purchased in Vancouver night clubs (and gay bars in particular), I do indeed have the evidence. I spent many hours combing through past editions of Xtra West, the Georgia Straight, the Vancouver Courier and the Vancouver Sun researching this exact topic a few years ago. The evidence is at your disposal too - it just takes a little time and effort. You don't know the half of it. Read the history. These are harsh and very real facts.

Many Many Years - nightbloom

That's not evidence my friend, it's anecdote.

Won't stand up for a moment in a court of law...

What exactly are you

What exactly are you disputing, Gwest? - the drug-related deaths I researched (as reported in both the mainstream & alternative media), or the non-enforcement bubble I discussed, or the fact of my long-time residency in Vancouver?

The first is a matter of public record, the second is so widely acknowledged that it's become axiomatic, and the third is of exclusive (and recurring) interest to you alone.

Now can we get on with the thread?

oh and nightbloom if you're

oh and nightbloom if you're going to throw stones then suggest workable alternatives to clearly failed policy. Moreover, explain why legalization, regulation and taxation wouldn't work.

Brownie, cookie, health bar anyone

Because if you got a pain you don't have to smoke it away as this herb also cooks up grand. And proves to be more benefical to pain while reducing vomiting leaving one with a little dignity without smoking up those lungs.

Fear mongering

You haven't made the case that it would increase costs. You haven't made the case that it would increase the burden on health care, corrections, and enforcement. You have no evidence at all to support those assertions beyond your making an assertion.

You have no evidence to support the notion of an Orwellian Dealer-State. Legal alcohol hasn't led to that, why would drugs.

All you can manage is to pedal nightmarish fantasy that has no basis in reality. It's pure fear mongering.

Again nightbloom you not only don't provide solutions, you engage in flights of nonsense with nothing to support it. And again you provide no alternatives. None.

Are you actually arguing

Are you actually arguing that we can integrate all currently illegal substances into the existing drug trials and approvals framework under the Food and Drugs Act *without* adding to our costs? Do you actually believe that?

And do you actually believe the need for enforcement would disappear as the government's liabilies increase exponentially? Do you actually believe that quality-controlled substances could be made so cheaply and so widely available that it would put backstreet junk dealers out of business, thereby eliminating the need for enforcement altogether? Wow.

As for evidence, here's a start: You can find out more about the existing clinical trials & approval framework here: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/
Not exactly streamlined, is it - Where would *you* cut the corners, J.B.? You can also see the current costing for yourself here: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/performance/estim-previs/dpr-rmr/index-eng.php Tell me how you would keep costs down, and explain how you would price the street dealers out of business. Maybe you would use that regulatory power to mandate that drugs be sold at cost - Maybe you'd even make them free with a doctor's certificate. So in that case, who would manufacture and distribute them? Who would fix all this up for you? Right. The government.

Interesting Assumption...

...that legalization includes legalization of everything, regardless of how harmful it is.

Delve a bit more into Gabor Mate's writings and you'll find some discussion of the efficacy of substituting controlled stimulants for uncontrolled/illegal ones.

Both Ritalin and Dexedrine have some utility as substitutes for far more destructive things like crystal meth and crack cocaine. Rather than legalizing those, why not carry out some hard research into a program that's operated in parallel to morphine distribution.

If so-called stimulant maintenance gets 30% of people off harder street drugs then it's probably worth it, especially when the minuscule costs are juxtaposed against the cost of doing nothing.

I'm not sure where

I'm not sure where nighblooms assumptions stem from, but legalizing drugs doesn't automatically make the government responsible.

There are vast numbers of unregulated dietary supplements and herbal medicines available all over the place which do not have approval.

Examples like Cold-FX, St. John's Wort and Echinacea could easily include jars of Sensimilla, Red Lebanese hashish or BC Bud on the shelf at GNC.

However, in this libertarian frenzy, could we also legalize firearm possession for law abiding citizen to exercise self defense against the remaining criminal elements?

What`s the reason?

for making certain drugs illegal and others not? I recall in the /80`s when magic mushrooms were not illegal that quite a few pickers had found a good crop on the Vancouver City Hall lawns. Then the shrooms were made illegal. Maybe these legislators were protecting us
from the harmful effects of these terrible drugs.Bless them! But they were still available. Only this time you got a criminal record as well.
Ian Mulgrew wrote an opinion column in the Vancouver Sun, yest. Feb. 23, "It just makes sense to end the War on Drugs"
advocating the legalization of drugs.
Also yesterday, in California, a bill was introduced by Assemblyman Tom Ammaniano of San Francisco that would regulate marijuana like alcohol: people over 21 would be allowed to grow, buy, sell and possess the drug. It`s estimated that $1.3 billion in taxes would be collected if marijuana were legalized and a $50.00 an oz. were levied.
An analysis found that legalization would drop street price by 50% and increase consumption by 40%.
It`s available now, controlled by the gangs to whom the profits go and of course not taxed. Does`nt make much sense does it.

legal drugs

for nightbloom...

I'm not sure what your argument is.
You said there has never been an example of defacto legalization that worked.

I suggested both alcohol and nicotine, both dangerous and addictive drugs. Both monitored by the Gov. Both you can buy easily.

Compassion clubs are a good example of a 'legal' way to make drugs avail. Not to mention bars.

You seem to be saying I have to prove that drugs can be made legal with no oversight from the government? What?
And what is this about the government being liable? I don't see people suing the government because they let us drink alcohol. I really don't get the 100% liable angle you are taking. The government is not liable for personal choices.

As for the Gov being the only supplier, sure they sell most of the alcohol, but they sure don't run the breweries and wineries.

And then there is this:
'The drug economy will *always* race to the lowest denominator of cheaper fixes, backstreet sources, and dirtier substances.'

This simply isn't true. People want a reliable quality (or at least consistent) product. People do not get the majority of their alcohol from some backwoods still, for example.

I'm still not sure you've really thought about this.
You seem to suggest that for legalization to be considered, it must bring some kind of drug utopia with it.
The article suggests legalizing drugs would eliminate one source of easy money from the gangs. I think that is true. I'm all for it.
Of course legal drugs are not going to get rid of the all the problems associated with them.

"People want a reliable

"People want a reliable quality (or at least consistent) product."

schmendrick, that's the middle-class consumerist talking. Poor, marginal and at-risk people can't pay for quality. You're always going to get a range of quality - from the high-price designer drugs funneled into the gay male community, to the corrosive junk sold a few blocks away in the DTES. Do you think homeless kids are shopping around and cherry-picking for quality product? Please.

On the examples you offered (of legalization frameworks that worked) hard drugs, alcohol, and nicotine are not analogous, no matter how hard people try to think that they are. Setting hard drugs aside for a moment, even just alcohol and nicotine are not analogous to each other either - certainly not in terms of the role of government in regulation, quality control, licensing and distribution. The association commonly made between them by pro-drug advocates might be convincing to some, but it's mythic. And nicotine is coming under increasingly strict regulation - in fact, it's highly likely that it will be rendered an illegal product for merchants to carry within our lifetimes.

As for alcohol - How would the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch of the Ministry of Housing and Social Development help your argument out here? Or would you like to start fresh with a brand new government department...?

jstewart - Yes, what J.B. was arguing most definitely made the government 100% liable for regulation, quality control, price control, and ultimately distribution as well. It's possible he didn't think it all the way through, but he was *not* presenting the standard libertarian argument (which usually stops at decriminalization). Go back and read his argument - I was fairly straight forward about why I think it wouldn't work.

Fantasy

nightbloom, you seem to have an emotionally based fundamental belief that recreational drugs are evil.

I say this because you seem utterly unable to do anything other than fabricate elaborate fantasy in response to rational argument about legalization of recreational drugs.

We have clear examples of regulated recreational drugs in alcohol and tobacco. How those drugs are handled in our society does not conform to your fantasies.

And again, I repeat, you have yet to provide ANY workable alternative to a problem that must be dealt with.

North of Hope

I hear the US military regularly loses track of arms shipments............

Emotionally Based?

JB - Who's being emotionally based? The one that's passionately advocating the legalization of one of many elements that fuels the rash of gang activity, (which is the actual subject). Or the one that points out logically that by doing that will cause more problems than it will actually solve. I find some poster's advocacy for the legalization (or de-criminalization) of drugs rather opportunistic, given the current tradgic circumstances.

So when the rash of gang violence dies down, and it will eventually die down (as history dictates, sure it will pop up again), what conduit, what catalyst are you going to use to say that drugs should be legalized?

All that I'm suggesting is that the bigger picture should be looked as opposed to one single element that may look good to you.

I mean Communism looks good too.....on paper...

Personally speaking, I'm really niether here or there when it comes to narcotics, it's something that I never really got into, but I don't shun people that use.

As for alternative suggestions; historically speaking this has to play itself out, and we as individuals have to pay attention to things like being more secure about our privacy, stop buying things like unlocked cells, or a PS3 from 'that guy that will meet you at the Skytrain station' just because you can save $100 bucks from buying it at Costco, or where ever.

It's all about personal choices or decisions that's going to supress the need for certain groups to take advantage of our weaknesses.

An unlocked cell phone or a

An unlocked cell phone or a stolen PS3 is play money next to the profit margins on illegal drugs. Crime won't go away.

But you're wrong rtbwa when you say it's all about personal choices. It isn't. It's far more about the systems we have in place for the distribution of wealth, access to education, healthcare, child care, and the like.

The systems we have in place to help care for each other will be reflected in the personal choices everyone makes. The more those systems are based on selfishness, and authoritarianism the more people will feel the need to escape society whether through self medication via recreational drugs, or through whatever other flavor of addiction is their "drug" of choice, be it religions like market or christian fundametalism, or sex or gluttony or what have you.

profit margins

JB, the profit margin on a stolen PS3 is about um, 100%.

A 1000 skimmed debit cards can yeild some pretty serious coin too.

No one puts a gun to anyone's head to smoke that joint (drugs). Put that money on the poker table (gambling), pick up that hooker (sex), buy a hot TV (consumerism), It is all a choice!!! People also chose to be dependant on what ever it is also a....choice.

One can also chose who controls their own destiny too, society allows for that as well.

Also,JB - 'because of the systems we have in place'? Why exactly is this always someone else's fault in your view?

Choice

rtbwa I don't see the point in your being obtuse. The illegal drugs trade is conservatively estimated to rake in hundreds of billions in profit. That is most certainly an underestimate. No other form of crime, other than the speculative gambling of international finance, makes criminals as much money.

People most certainly are forced into using drugs. People most certainly are forced into prostitution. In fact, those two often go hand in hand.

When people have choice to lead healthy happy lives, that's what most of them do. When the only choice they have is to live in misery or to live in misery, but briefly medicate away or momentarily forget that misery by using drugs or sex or gambling, that's what they choose.

If you're trapped in a burning skyscraper and your choices are to stay and burn to death or to jump to your certain death, you have a "choice", but it isn't much of one. The environment you're in places very strict limits on your choices.

The positive role our systems have to play is in creating an environment where people clearly have more opportunity. But real opportunity in the choice they can make in the kinds of education they can have and the kinds of work they can do. That kind of opportunity has been shrinking in our society for the last 20 or more years, not growing.

From CNN today...

California is considering legalizing and taxing marijuana to save their economy.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/02/24/wian.pot.tax.cnn

Limit or Expand Options

James, Just to respond to a couple of points. I agree that illegal drugs is 100's of billions..but so are other illegal trades. (Google 'Black Market').

Do you think the guns and ammo that the gangs use to kill are legally obtained? They're not, and guns (along with other contraban legal or otherwise) are all part of illegal trade. Just simply removing one element isn't going to do anything to curb the violence.

About choices; I'm sorry but, no one is ever forced into protitution, no one is ever forced into taking drugs regardless of the environment they grew up in, especially in this country.

I'm not saying no one is ever pressured, but they can chose to pass..

My wife is a perfect example of this, she grew up improvrished and in a bad part of Montreal and managed to have the stregnth to get a post secondary education, worked and paid for her education as she's gone along (no loans) and now has a very successful career. I know it's anicdotal but statistics on success is rather limited, as opposed to stats on destitution.

She did have a choice, she didn't succumb to her environment, and she did it on her own. By no means, am I saying what she did was easy. But it worked, that's why it's hard to convince me otherwise.

You can assess and expand your options, or just limit them and try to get someone else to make those choices for you.

Naive

"I'm sorry but, no one is ever forced into protitution"

Well either you're utterly naive or spectacularly ignorant. Of course there are people forced into prostitution. Of course there are people forced into using drugs. And that includes this country. Go Google "human trafficking".

But overall rtbwa, you're not providing any argument against legalization of drugs.

So what if criminals pursue other illegal activities? They won't be pursuing crime associated with producing, distributing and dealing drugs.

So what if other criminal violence will still exist? There won't be criminal violence associated with rivalry over the illegal drugs trade.

What do you see as the downsides of legalization?

If not legalization, what do you propose should be done about the crime, and the problems associated with drugs? Nothing currently in place has worked. The problem has just gotten worse.

Naive Eh?

JB - This isn't Somolia, or rural Malaysia no one forces any CANADIAN into drugs and prostitution. Period!!!!

I'm not denying that it's an important issue, but Human traffiking in the context of this discussion is an extreme a staw-man argument, you're using to try to debunk my points. Points regarding choices which are based on realistic assumptions such as the fact that the best way to curb gang violence is to not feed into it, not to be a consumer of all the wares

However, since you've brought up human traffiking you're illustrating my one of my main points. That is; illegal drugs, even legalize drug traffiking will not make a lick of difference to gangs, and gang violence.

In the past few weeks not one of these murderers has been arrested and even questioned. Here's where I won't make an assumption; that any of these shootings had anything DIRECTLY related to drugs, we don't know that, we may never know that for sure. And, if one was ever question, I really doubt they're going to say that it was for drugs or drug profit.

'So what if other criminal violence will still exist? There won't be criminal violence associated with rivalry over the illegal drugs trade.'

So you're okay with criminal violence, as long as it doesn't affect ones need to legally obtain narcotics?

Let's say drugs are legalized:

So you dont' think that these rival gangs can't adapt to other sources of income?

So you don't think that the legalization of drugs, specifically pot and crystal meth will cause a whole new under-ground economy? since, pot especially can be grown anywhere, how exactly will back yard pot be taxed?

So you think some meth addict, with no money is going to stroll into the drug store and get his fix, that the clerk will happily hand over some for free?

And, you think I'm being naive or spetaculary ignorant!

Ignorance

"JB - This isn't Somolia, or rural Malaysia no one forces any CANADIAN into drugs and prostitution. Period!!!"

Oh really:

"A couple in Gatineau, Que., faces new charges in relation to accusations that they abducted, confined and forced at least three teenage girls to prostitute themselves."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/08/12/ot-prostitution-080812.html

rtbwa, you really need to do at least a quick Google search if you're going to make assertions. You're just making yourself look ignorant. As for counter examples to your notion that gang violence isn't drug related:

"Darryl Plecas, a criminology professor at the University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, B.C., said the increase in shootings can be linked to the drug market's very own recession.
"The drug market exploded up until a couple of years ago, which explains why all of a sudden we had so many gangs, so many people wanting to get in on the action," Plecas said.
But in the last couple of years that drug market has shrunk, he said.
"So if you have more people vying for the same market share, then we should expect there's going to be turf wars going on."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hQ7_zExO7WbUVgZwOcvaJ0NPsYiQ

But of course you know better than people who study the problem professionally, including the police.

Eliminating the criminal profits from drugs will reduce criminal violence. The vast majority of gang violence is over drug related activity because of the immense profits involved. Eliminate that, and that leaves criminal gangs with far less lucrative sources of revenue. There will be drastically less of an incentive to turn to criminal activity, because the monetary rewards will be far, far smaller. Why is this point lost on you?

I mean really rtbwa, what would happen, all the drug dealers would switch to dealing PS3s, and there would be shootings over PS3 dealer territory?

But back to legalization. If drugs are legalized, why would there be a new underground economy in drugs? You aren't making any sense. There already is an underground economy in drugs, and it exists because drugs are illegal.

As for people who grow pot in their backyard, they would be like people who grow tobacco in their backyard. Few and far between. Most people would simply go for the convenience of buying pot cigarettes at the corner store. But so what if they grow it in their backyard? Why would that be a problem?

As for your hypothetical meth addict strolling into a store, why wouldn't he just pay for his fix in the same way a nicotine addict does now?

Most of your points are nonsensical. In fact, none of them are even argument against legalization.

And you still haven't come up with a counter solution to the problem of drugs and drug related crime. If legalization isn't the answer, what is?

"So what if criminals pursue

"So what if criminals pursue other illegal activities? They won't be pursuing crime associated with...drugs. So what if other criminal violence will still exist? There won't be criminal violence associated with rivalry over the illegal drugs trade."

J.B., you call rtbwa "naive" and "ignorant"? Your assertions above are what's naive here.

You claim that no one has engaged you on the dilemmas facing a legalization framework? You clearly ignore much that has been written here, including by me.

You accuse others of "fantasy" and emotionalism, yet when you are faced with a rational point-by-point counter-argument you retreat into utopian abstractions and platitudes concerning wealth distribution and perfect systems.

You proclaim that anyone attempting a critical & rational appraisal of legalisation is motivated by fundamentalism or some other dogma. Yet it is YOU who is repeating the most boiler plate dogma there is on this issue, and who is displaying the fundamentalist's trademark deafness to dialogue and imperviousness to new, opposing, or nuanced perspectives.

Laissez-Faire Drug Policy

Well, one positive thing about responding to JB is that I can progresivly articulate my points...

JB asks: 'And you still haven't come up with a counter solution to the problem of drugs and drug related crime. If legalization isn't the answer, what is?'

As Nightbloom pointed out we've told you in spades what we think may be more effective than the carte-blanch legalization of drugs, and that what you and Rafe are advocating will cause more problems than they'll solve.

Look at it this way: I agree with Rafe on one point: Prohibition on alcohol was a short-sited, knee-jerk response, changing a long standing tradition on a commodity who's sole intent is to alter moods. The intent was to change moral behavior of the population and do away with a social ill that was thought to be the root of all evil.

This is so easy to change around: I don't need to type too much just CTRL C and CTRL V a couple of keystrokes and voila!

The legalization of drugs IS a short-sited, knee-jerk response, changing a long standing tradition on a commodity who's sole intent is to alter moods. The intent was to change moral behavior of the population and do away with a social ill that was thought to be the root of all evil.

Besides, Milton Friedman was a huge advocate for the legalization of pot:

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html

We do know how well Friedman's meddling with society works ;P

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/10/14/milton-and-the-meltdown-in-iceland/

Full Disclosure:

In order to avoid some idiological war on this thread - just want to mention that I'm a centerist.

Whack-a-mole

NB and rtbwa, what are the alternatives to legalization?

rtbwa, prohibition does not equal legalization. It makes far more sense to compare the legalization of other recreational drugs with legal alcohol, and to compare alcohol prohibition with the current prohibition against other recreational drugs. Like to like. Otherwise it just looks like you're grasping at semantic straws.

Actually rtbwa, you seem to have a problem making reasoned argument. I don't know if it's a language barrier, or if you just don't have a grasp of the process of critical thinking. It seems to be the latter.

I'd highly recommend you start with wikipedia's entry on critical thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
It would be far more productive dealing with substantive issues of why legalization would or wouldn't work. Having to continuously point out your nonsensical arguments seems pointless. It's like an endless game of whack-a-mole.

"...you seem to have a

"...you seem to have a problem making reasoned argument"

Look who's talking. I have no problem understanding rtbwa, and I doubt anyone else does either. Your cheap shot about critical thinking is just petty and small-minded. You should take your own advice.

I've given you many solid counter-arguments that expose the holes in your pro-legalization dogma. I covered everything with you - from production costs & quality control, pricing & regulation of supply, enforcement & crime...Yet you feign deafness, refuse to engage on any of these points, and lapse back into the stale comfort of cant and dogma. On top of that, you've continued your habit of upbraiding others for the very faults you demonstrate so persistently here on these threads.

You can huff & puff, but the fact is you simply have not made the case for legalization. That's the sub-title of the piece, and the topic of the article.

And again NB you provide no

And again NB you provide no alternative to legalization. None. It is a lack of imagination?

Instead, you rehash issues that have been dealt with, that I and others have answered.

Production costs would be cheaper, vastly cheaper; as everything from harvesting, to processing, to shipping and distribution can be done out in the open, without the dangers posed by police and other criminals. That's how alcohol and tobacco work now.

Quality control is the same thing. Again establish a regulatory framework for quality and purity in much the same way it is established for alcohol and tobacco.

Pricing is a factor of production costs, which will be drastically lower. Pricing can be further adjusted by instituting taxes at various levels.

You aren't interested in responding to these points other than to deny through mere assertion that currently illegal recreational drugs can't be treated in much the the same way as alcohol or tobacco. Sure they can. You've given no reason why they can't beyond fantastical supposition.

That's really the only other avenue you've explored: fear mongering based fantastical notions of an Orwellian dealer state. That's not what anyone would describe as remotely intelligent argument, and you know it.

Handling recreational drugs sensibly is well within our ability as a society. We do it with alcohol and tobacco, although a lot more of the tax dollars the latter two recreational drugs generate should go to treatment of addiction and the other problems they cause. But the legal use of those substances has yet to destroy society, or result in an Orwellian dealer state.

Legal recreational drugs would most certainly continue to cause society horrible problems, but legalizing them would give us the opportunity, and the revenue to substantially reduce the harm (like crime and dirty impure drugs) they currently cause.

But again, as you have so far refused to do, provide an alternative to legalization. The status quo doesn't work. What else is there?

Legalization - how about Marginalization...

JB says: But again, as you have so far refused to do, provide an alternative to legalization. The status quo doesn't work. What else is there?"

How about marginalization?

This is working for reducing tobaco use. It may be status quo right now for narcotics but the more we stop glamourizing, rationalizing and defending recreational drug use, the easier it will also take away the 'profit center' from the gangs. It's not instant, but I think it's more effective than legalization, once all the checks and balances are looked at.

By the way JB, while you consider your response to me. Instead of questioning my intellegence, you might want to check out this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I agree with the notion of

I agree with the notion of not glamorizing drug use, or better said, "If you use it don't lose it." where losing it is excessive consumption.

But marginalization is currently being tried, we marginalize addicts rather thoroughly. You only have to take a visit to the downtown East Side to see that.

In addition, marginalization only encourages two-faced behavior. The majority of recreational drug users don't become addicts. But because of the stigma attached to drugs, not to mention their criminality, people maintain it as a private vice while speaking out against it in public.

It's akin to American Republican elected officials condemning homosexuality while in fact engaging in homosexual behavior. We realized a long time ago (at least in most circles) that homosexuality should not be illegal, but the effects of its past marginalization still have an affect today.

Encouraging best practice behavior in the moderate use of any brain altering recreational substance works far better than attempting to marginalize it. In fact, that's true of most behavior.

But I think the best way to approach and fund that would be through a legalization framework. Taxes on recreational drugs would certainly provide the funding.

As I've made clear, legalization must include regulation, and taxation. I'm not for a moment suggesting a hands-off attitude like the past deregulation of the finance industry. Down that path would be an almost certain mess. But we have existing models in alcohol and tobacco, they certainly don't work perfectly, but they work far better that our current criminalization of other recreational drugs.

Oh and I wasn't questioning your intelligence rtbwa, I was questioning your skill at critical thinking. For example, it is a fallacy to say Milton Friedman was in favor of legalization, and Milton Friedman is bad, therefore legalization is bad. Your premises don't support your conclusion. You were doing that repeatedly in a number of your points. The result of that kind of behavior is that instead dealing with an issue substantively your focus is on "winning" or in shutting down debate.

People who don't want to change the status quo, even if it is unacceptable, commonly resort to those kinds of tactics.

"Encouraging best practice

"Encouraging best practice behavior in the moderate use of any brain altering recreational substance..."

Is this also a role for Big Government, in your view, alongside regulation, quality control, price control, and (inevitably) distribution of drugs...to promulgate, support, and "encourage" best practices in "moderate" drug use by its citizens? The state as both Dealer and Enabler?

I think one of the problems here is that you're trying to have it both ways, and haven't thought through all the inherent contradictions. There's a reason why libertarians stick with decriminalization. A true libertarian recognizes that genuine choice means individual and personal acceptance of unlimited liability when it comes to recreational drug use. Based on your earlier posts, you view "choice" as the result of systems, doctrines, institutions and power structures. This is fundamentally un-libertarian. It's liberal. Hence, your legalization plan requires government to provide total insurance through overlapping systems of control. There would be no end to the role of government.

gang violence & "Innocent people are at risk every day"

While I have every sympathy for the families of victims, and agree that police and the legal system should act to stop the use of guns, against people, I do not thinkwe need any new laws, just active , and "proactive", use of the existing laws.
I also wish to put these recent "gang violence" incidents in perspective:
It would seem, to me, that police and the legal system must set priorities, on the use of their resources, not unlike the way the medical system uses triage; that is, by dealing first with situations that threaten life.
Obviously, the careless use of guns is a threat to life ( homicide). Statistics show that about 0.8% of accidental deaths are the result of homicide - of which only a portion would be the result of gunshots. Accidental deaths due to motor vehicle accidents are about 23% of all accidental deaths. Police and ICBC studies show that at least 50% of all MVAs are at least partly due to aggressive driving ( speeding, tailgating, cutting in too close, failing to signal, etc). This isn't even considering the comparable numbers of people dying as a result of workplace accidents , injuries and/or exposures.
Clearly, far, far more innocent people (bwt 11.5% & 23%) are at daily risk of death, or injury, due to aggressive drivers, than due to shooting/ "gang violence" ( at most 0.5%). The math is not in the realm of rocket science!
Ordinary working people need to put a little effort into "connecting the dots", and think about why this particular concern is being used to justify more police and fewer protections for average citizens ( removal of "disclosure" requirements, as proposed by our present BC governing party).

As a country, and a society , we must remember that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance, and not allow extreme right-wing political parties to take us farther down the road to Fascism.
One is just as dead, whether from a bullet or an aggressive driver. Cars and trucks are also deadly weapons, in the hands of aggressive drivers. One can only hope that logic will one day prevail, and priorities will be set by rational thought, rather than knee-jerk reactions ( or, as the result of manipulations by people or parties with hidden agendas). The numbers clearly show that far more people are injured, crippled and killed in motor vehicle accidents, than by any group of "criminal gangs"/"career criminals"; it therefore, makes simple sense that our priority, as a society, is to stop the needless slaughter on our roads. More than 22 times as many people are affected by MVAs and aggressive driving. If the Squamish highway was claiming as many lives, and injuring and crippling as many people, there would be no question that fixing the problem would be the #1 priority. Let's put aside our self-interest/selfishness, and admit that that we need to stop accepting aggressive driving as 'normal', and treat it as the criminal act it is.

My Focus

My focus is far from shutting down the debate. Quite on the contrary: Firstly, I haven't posted anything without a question mark. And secondly, getting drawn into a tit-for-tat discussion fraught with usless straw-man arguments, isn't doing anyone any favors.

Some of my points may seem abstract at first glance but my intention with my points is to get the reader to look at the bigger picture and to eventually understand where I'm coming from with my views, rather than spelling them out directly.

For example my point about Friedman was that his mentality and people who adopt his, libertarian philosophy (which he's been fairly consistent on since denouncing the New Deal). His ideas seem to be based on instant gratification, and an over reliance and trust of 'the market'. As we noticed of late, there was no exit strategy, it's void of any pragmatism, and when things crash, they crash big.

All I was stating, in that post, was that Friedman's much publicized endorsement of legalizing pot was likely born out of Friedman (and Mike Walker's), salivating over the revenue a legalized drug trade, again they were more focused on the potential and to hell with the consequences which is quite evident, as history is now telling us.

If Friedman's social/econominic philosophies were not thought through properly, what makes one think that his endorsement of legalizing pot should be any different? How would it be any different?

My conclusion also hold true in my Prohibition vs Legalization point. They are similar; both legislations have the same intent, and will likely have the same negative impact on society. They're just working from 'opposite sides of the barn' so to speak.

Holding true to the title of this thread, I don't think legalizing drugs will make rival gang violence go away. Rival gangs, have been killing each other well before the ancestors of the first person to ever call for a prohibition of narcotics was even born.

No one suggested rival

No one suggested rival criminal gangs will cease to exist, just that their impact will be lessened by legalizing drugs. It cannot but be lessened with the loss of such a huge source of revenue. Moreover, the colossal amounts of drug money won't be working to corrupt elected officials and police. Those things would be of huge social benefit.

I don't think Friedman et al. were focused on instant gratification. They bought into a flawed myth about market self-regulation and Ayn Rand-ian notions of enlightened self-interest. They promulgated those notions with religious fervor, and it has done enormous harm to the world economy.

Friedman, frankly, is irrelevant to the discussion. If your concern was that legalizing drugs would encourage a massive increase in harmful self gratification, then you should have just said that.

There is no evidence to suggest that legalization, if handled in a way similar to the way other legal recreational drugs are handled, will have the same negative impact on society that prohibition did. The evidence points to the contrary. Prohibition was about trying to stop a behavior, legalization is about facilitating a behavior in a way that makes it as safe as socially possible when people engage in it.

Now as for implementation specifics, there are plenty of possibilities. It might start with a time limited government monopoly or public corporation in the initial stages of legalization to set quality standards. But it would make sense to open the market up to regulated competition, with the regulation focus on social safety. There are plenty of thorny issues that would have to be dealt with, advertising for example. But none of the issues are so complex as trying to enforce prohibition on something people are not going to stop doing.

Honestly, if anyone is really concerned about drug use, then the best way to approach the problem is to ensure wealth in our society is equitably distributed, and to provide equal access of opportunity, particularly in areas of education, but certainly not limited to that. People who are happy, and who are doing what for them is meaningful work, are far, far less likely to use recreational drugs. That process, however, can and should go hand in hand with legalization.

As a society we have a responsibility to reduce the harm our social systems cause, particularly in the case of clearly failed policy. Compared to the criminalization of recreational drugs, there are very few policies that are so clearly detrimental to society (another comparably harmful policy would be encouraging automobile use, but that's not really relevant to this thread).