Well, I’m more in favor of strict control and supervision than criminalization. The notion that less ‘stuff’ is available on the market if it is illegal simply doesn’t hold. Huge drug cartels ship tons of coke around the world and the number is increasing every year, while the price is – decreasing (The Economist).
From that follows that government control of illegal substances is not effective, because they cannot get full hold of them, cannot track them, cannot confiscate them and finally, cannot charge the ones responsible, because they cannot apprehend them. Here fails the ultimate goal of criminalization – to charge the ones responsible – you cannot do that if you cannot catch them.
On the other hand, government control of substances that go through their distribution channels is in theory the 100% control (if they own the substances and control the distribution channels, then everything that goes through them, is also in their direct control). Some say that this is only a remedy for potheads and junkies to get their stuff more easily and that it distances us from our prime goal – a drug-free society (somehow through reading countless anti-drug propaganda, I’ve made a conclusion that two of the main reasons as to why criminalization is good, leave alone that I’ve just proven to you why criminalization fails, is the strife for a drug-free society and individual health). Despite the fact that strict government control and thus legalization at first look seem like a direct opposition to a drug-free society, we also see that criminalization does not bring about a drug-free society. Just because something is illegal, doesn’t mean it’s not persistent. Drug-free society doesn’t come, it is achieved. And that can only be done if a responsible agent, which is not a pusher/dealer, but government, have control over those substances.