Drug War Heresies Post #2

From the MacCoun and Reuter book I'm reading. Under the section Prospects for Change:

"American policy seems paralyzed; on the basis of a false dichotomy between two extremes - a Bennett-style War on Drrugs and a libertarian free market - more moderate alternatives to the status quo are either buried or crushed by the political mainstream. This is largely traceable to a sweeping but unreflective allegiance to "prevalence reduction" - the notion that the only defensible goal for drug policy is to reduce the number of users, hopefully to zero. Two other strategies seem equally important for rational drug control: quantity reduction (reducing the quantity consumed by those who won't quit using drugs) and harm reduction (reducing the harmful consequences of drug use when it occurs). There are tradeoffs among these strategies, but they are less severe than the ones implied by the sweeping cliche "would send the wrong message." An examination of the political psychology of attitudes toward drugs helps to explain the quagmire; it also suggests reasons why the public could shift views rapidly and unexpectedly."

I've definitely contributed to the problem - historically, I've only talked in terms of legalization. But, some of my own research highlighted the disease outbreaks associated with the crack epidemic, and I realized that social harm increased with drug use - particularly if it reached an epidemic proportion, where the network effects are strongest. Since then, I've been trying to find the right middle ground, and I think this book is helpful towards that.