I wouldn't use such a heavy exageration, it damages the rest of your argument.

While I agree some drugs are too difficult to use safely, I don't agree this is sufficient reason to make them illegal. Saying we should keep them illegal because they will destroy lives doesn't help the argument. They already destroy lives, but nobody has trouble finding them. Currently society pays to keep it illegal while also paying criminals to provide it.

I agree that regulated use is justified on many classes of drugs. However, I believe that regulating that use through costs, disincentives, and forced education is a better tactic than arrests and jail time.

Look at the tools to discourage use we have given up:

• Sin Taxes: The pure cost argument.
• Removal of Rights: If you can't act responsible, you can't tell anyone else what to do.
• Increased Liability: If doing something under the influence, penalties are harsher.
• Tracking: Making drugs traceable from source to user.
• Rehab Programs: Currently, no sane person would admit using the drug unless as a last ditch defense.

Any drug proven to be obtainable, easily, should not be regulated such that criminal enterprises are the simplest and easiest way to get it. The costs in such circumstances have proven far too high. How many people are injured or die every year in gang violence versus those who jump off cliffs in a bad LSD trip?

It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Are they bad? Yes.
Should any reasonable person be given free access? No.
Should we criminally prosecute anyone providing them to irresponsible people (Children, Felons)? Yes.

I think your current cost benefit analysis is too naive to be usable for judging where to draw the line. That said, I think we could come up with something more reasonable then the current laws with little effort.

Items to consider:

• Ease of creation
• Who provides it
• Benefits
• Damage to User
• Level of Recovery
• Damage to Others
• Cost of Enforcement

By my thinking, if it is trivial for a basement lab to make a hard drug, we are better off providing it through legal means with safeguards. Making it impossible to get legally only increases the power of the black market.

As the article makes clear, illegal drug enforcement invokes a heavy cost to lives, law enforcement, and foreign governments.

I would suggest using this repeal to also damage our foes. Afghanistan warlords, Columbian cartels, Mexican gangs, and local dealers all benefit enormously from keeping drugs illegal. Cutting these groups off from one of their primary sources of funds could be a major benefit.

People will make mistakes in their lives and will sometimes turn to drugs when they should not. Destroying their life does not serve society half as well as rebuilding it could. Taxes on such drugs could easily pay for all the outreach and counseling programs you might want.

Marijuana, in particular is one of the silliest things to make illegal.
1) We are forced to make exceptions for folks that need it as a 'best treatment'.
2) It isn't as dangerous as alcohol.
3) It is trivial to grow just about anywhere.
4) We have lost all the other uses of hemp fiber (paper, rope, etc)

Tax it like hell but allow it all and put the money into proper tracking of who is using it. That's my vote. I too have worry about making really hard drugs legal, but if you make it traceable, and still allow employers to bar folks failing drug tests. I see much less harm than we find in the current destructive cycles that wastes billions annually while enriching the part of society we should be trying to weaken.