I cannot believe that the various tenets in Captain Birdseye's proposals and his ignorance about this issue have not been challenged, apart from Art's reference to the FDA.

Let's start from the bottom, and I'm assuming that CB is talking about psychotropic substances whose use is currently regulated by legislation such as the UK's Misuse of Drugs Act - http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs-laws/misuse-of-drugs-act/ or those covered by the 1968 Medicines Act and only currently available from pharmacists via a prescription.

CB is suggesting this for starters: 'government control over use of clean needles, government control over quality of drugs, government control over strength of drugs'. He doesn't state which government he has in mind, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is that no government can control the 'use of clean needles' - how can it? Clean needles are supplied free of charge by the clinic where I work in the UK (and at many others), but there's no way that any government can police how used needles are then subsequently employed.

For a government to control the strength and quality (whatever that means - skunk over Leb gold?) of psychotropic drugs entering its domain it would have not only to 'corner the market' and take over all importation (and probably take over production in various other countries), but establish quality control laboratories and then either its own or a licensed chain of retail outlets.

However, even if such a system were to be introduced it would not make one dent in the production of Ecstasy, acid, home-grown dope and the gathering of magic mushrooms.

CB's next point is 'criminals will no longer find it financially viable, as their market is removed'. Far from it. Anyone would be able to buy some coke, cut it however they chose and make a very fast buck from those in need and not willing to pay the governmental rate.

This one just begs belief - 'freeing of police time, enabling more time to be spent on the attempted solving of other crimes.' Those without money will still be poor. Those who want a particular substance (and I shy away from the term 'addict' - it's not helpful) will still look for non-legal means of raising the wherewithal.

CB refers to 'revenue in taxation, to fund hospitalisation for addicts'. This again reveals his sheer ignorance about the use of psychotropic drugs. Virtually every substance listed under the Misuse of Drugs Act does not lead to physical addiction, and those that may (and I use the term very cautiously - and note the word 'physical'), such as heroin, are actually no more productive of dependency (and no more damaging) than many of the drugs prescribed by doctors.

Lastly, there's this 'if this was tried along with a government propaganda campaign against [similar to tobacco] and over a period of a couple of years found to be unsuccessful, drugs could be made illegal once more.' Well, I've been around the drugs education world far longer than CB and I can tell him, without question, that government propaganda campaigns are an utter waste of time. It is far better, and far more productive, to spend money on drugs education work within schools.