"The argument “Crack is bad; therefore psilocybin should remain illegal” is transparently false. But so is the corollary “Psilocybin has moderate risks and great potential in facilitating personal growth; therefore crack should be sold at the 7-11.”

Granted, those two are extremes and are bad ideas. However, note that he is willing to take one extreme idea (Crack is bad; therefore psilocybin should remain illegal) and bring it more to the middle, but he is not willing to consider taking the other idea (Psilocybin has moderate risks and great potential in facilitating personal growth; therefore crack should be sold at the 7-11.) and bring it more to the middle. Why is it so out of the question to have creative (and perhaps very strict) regulations on legal drugs?

"Caulkins and I could probably go on at length about all the ways in which the costs of the current prohibitions, especially in the forms of violence, incarceration, and infectious disease, ...

Perhaps he can reduce incarceration without completely repealing prohibition, but I doubt he can reduce violence (unless perhaps he's only refering to drug user violence and not black market violence, in which case, perhaps he can; but that's a very small fraction of the violence). And reducing infectious disease, yes, by needle exchange programs, safe injection sites, and other harm reduction measures that all of us are aware of and support. However, most of those harm reduction measures could be implemented with legalization just as effectively if not more so.

".... could be reduced without allowing the massive increases in abuse levels that would surely result from commercialization. [Boyum and Reuter 2005; MacCoun and Reuter 2001] ..."

I haven't read that because I don't know how to find it, but it seems suspect to me. It seems interesting that he uses the word "commercialization" and not legalization. It's probable that he's refering to some study that estimates the worst possible increase as a result of "commercialization", which probably means "hard drugs being advertised in Disney Channel at 11:00am, and some mathematical equation that calculates how much money is put into advertising and how that translates into use (disregarding the possibility that people can think for themselves and don't want to use crystal meth)". Of course, i have to admit, I haven't read it, so i don't really have any idea what it might say.

"To offer three specifics: We could reduce violence and drunken driving by raising alcohol taxes [Cook 2007, Cook forthcoming], ..."

Really? Then why not do the same with other drugs?

Plus, this is actually talking about alcohol user violence, not alcohol prohibtion violence.

"we could shrink the illicit drug markets and reduce recidivism by using drug testing and swift, automatic, and mild sanctions to force probationers to stop using expensive illicit drugs [Kleiman 1998, Hawken and Kleiman 2007, Schoofs 2008], ..."

Perhaps you can reduce recidivism a little with those mild sanctions, but how are you going to catch a significant percentage of drug users without, at least, drug testing, say, fifty percent of the population once every two months? Plus, how many parole officers would you have to hire to monitor all those people? Would the parole officers be drug tested too? And how do you expect to increase the price of illicit drugs if you can't tax them?

Again, I have to admit, I haven't read it, but it doesn't seem like it could work.

"and we could break up street drug markets, thus protecting neighborhoods, with low-arrest drug crackdowns [Kennedy 2008, Schoofs 2008]...."

Yeah, right.

"I would far rather discuss those opportunities for practical improvement than debate the largely academic question about whether the regulation of abusable psychoactives is a legitimate function of the state."

If he had ever lost his right to financial aid for his education, his right to live in public housing, his right to get a job, or if his house was invaded by a swat team and killed his dogs, or even worse, if he were serving a few years in jail right now, i'd like to hear him refer to the topic is "largely academic".

I found Mr. Kleinman's argument to be so utterly subjective and convoluted in its reasoning that it is difficult to respond to.
"But although I have heard and read many accounts of the pleasures of heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine use (and, for that matter, alcohol and tobacco use) I have never heard or read anyone explain what he or she purports to have learned from the use of those drugs, or any other sort of lasting benefit."
I have used heroin and other opiates as a substitute for opium (unavailable for the last 25+ years) for nearly 38 years. I have learned that the prevailing dominant culture is hysterical and hypocritical (and mean) though I admit this knowledge comes from the result of experiencing opium use in its current social context, that of legal persecution and not from opium use per se. I could say that I have learned that I possess a degree of stoicism in that for me addiction (which I embrace rather than succumb to) is not synonomous with "enslavement". I use opiates without fear of addiction or withdrawal and periods of using are punctuated with periods of painful withdrawal, recovery and abstinance. The only other drug I truly love is coffee which has taught me little if anything. My personal belief is that the necessity of "learning" as a result of using any particular drug should be a matter of individual choice. The "lasting benefit" I have received from using opium per se is an enhanced enjoyment of living.
"Caulkins can reasonably dismiss the benefits forgone in obeying the current drug laws as mere “pleasure,” because he is concentrating on drugs that merely give pleasure."
"Merely give pleasure?" Our puritanical society seems to respect pain but certainly downplays the value of pleasure when not demonizing it. I would argue that both pleasure and pain contain spiritual dimension.
"Still, I think Caulkins could make a plausible case that the decision to start to use alcohol or tobacco or cocaine or heroin or methamphetamine (in other than pill form) is an ex ante bad decision, because the relatively modest gain from successfully controlled use, multiplied by the probability of achieving controlled use, is outweighed by the very heavy losses from falling into even relatively transient abuse and the extreme losses from falling into chronic abuse, multiplied by those probabilities. The expected value of the gamble may well be negative, even if most people who take the gamble come out somewhat ahead of the game, because the average loser loses more than the average winner gains."
First, I am amused and bemused by Mr.Kleimans removal of speed "in pill form" from his list of "ex ante bad decisions". This mathmatical rhetoric seems better suited for an argument to close down casinos than to deal with a phenomenon as universal and inherently human as drugtaking.
I am of the opinion that we human beings should be judged for our actions when they are truly destructive and not by our deviation from the tastes of dominant culture in regard to drugtaking, a widespread and pedestrian activity.
And regarding the fear of "crack in 7-11" resulting when corporations take over and mass market all drugs? Another can of worms too large to tackle in this simple letter. Though I will suggest this: Essentially this has already happened.

Government funding has pretty much made a whore out of academia on issues of drug control and prevention.

Kleiman currently works as a consultant to governments from the local to federal level on crime control and drug policy. So on issues of drug policy reform, expect him to give a luke warm response that walks on a tight rope and will never have any significant influence towards improving this country's drug laws.

Besides, since when have mild-mannered, college professors played a significant role in any major social reform? They didn't get our country in this mess and they sure will not be the key players to get us out.

From the first time I debated Kleiman to the last, it was a rare pleasure.His sense of superiority over those who like or need drugs is magnificent, as his ideas about how people should live and aspire for ever greater greatness, as he so succesfully exemplifies.
If you can, try to meet with him, this delightful person.

Peter Cohen
Amsterdam

"His sense of superiority over those who like or need drugs is magnificent"

The road to the war on drugs was paved on such arrogance.

Quote by Kleiman:

"So given a straight-up choice between the current drug laws and a libertarian regime under which all drugs would be treated as more or less ordinary articles of commerce, I think about what the brewing and cigarette industries, and their marketing (and lobbying) arms, could do if given cocaine to play with, and recoil in horror toward the current state of affairs."

I wonder if there is any alternative path between the uncontrolled illegal drug market dominated by major drug cartels and laissez faire drug markets dominated by Big Tobacco & 7-11.

Scott is a noble warrior... this buzz is for you!

'Of course the assholes aren't going to discuss anything meaningful..." because we keep bringing a pen to a gun fight.

These are the same machiavellian mofo's that insist we should tolerate the killing & incarcerating of those that dare to disagree... with their insane assertions and criminal acts!

Fuck these disgusting people... the law says you have the right to defend yourself, including pre-emptive self-defense, when it comes to protecting your inalienable rights.

A home invader is a home invader and should always be treated as such. A cops costume, a prohibitionists pretense, or a politicians paranoia should never be a serious consideration when it comes to enforcing your rights... for the simple reason that their lives are not worth your life, or your liberty, or your pursuit of happiness, or your legally acquired property, hell, their lives aren't even worth my dogs life!

Billy B. Blunt
Tacoma, WA