Crack is the most destructive drug I have seen. I'm glad it wasn't around "back in the day." That is one drug that is so destructive that I don't see how making it legal would help anything. Ditto crystal meth (most of the "speed" drugs, for that matter.)

Some one said drug dealers don't tend to deal a variety of drugs. In my community that simply isn't true. (Crack may be the exception.) Like Spleen Cringe, I don't specialize in Substance Abuse but many of my clients are dually diagnosed, and I facilitate a dual diagnosis relapse prevention group. Polysubstance dependence is very common.

There are no easy answers. I agree with you, Drug Worker, that the issue is exceedingly complex.

The genetics of addiction have probably been with us since the beginning. Technology, science, and the ability to move goods and people in increasing volume and numbers, starting several hundred years ago, and burgeoning in the 20th century, has resulted in both an increase in the number of addictive substances in concentrated form, and much more widespread availability.

A very different paradigm is needed to figure out how to manage these realities. The repressive, "zero tolerance" stance that is dominant in the USA clearly doesn't work. It may have perhaps reduced cannabis use where drug testing is common in the work place, since cannabis can be detected for such a long a time. But it has had little if any effect on the use of other drugs that often lead to far more destructive behaviors, but that flush out of the system within just a few days.

Many years ago, I was addicted to morphine. I never dealt drugs, but nearly all of my associates were dealers. If they didn't themselves usually deal in a particular drug, through their contacts, they could get any drug one might want to try.    Three of my very close friends got busted. Back then, there was the "Youth Correctional Act." I don't remember what the age cut-off was, but it was over age 18 to somewhere between age 25 and 30. All three of them went to prison, to a federal Youth Correctional Facility in Lexington, KY. This was an adult prison, not a juvenile detention center. It was not a pleasant experience, but there was serious training and rehabilitation opportunities. The time they served ranged from 1 to 3 years. Under the Youth Correctional Act, if you served out your sentence and parole with no significant problems, then stayed out of trouble for another period of time (I think a year, but don't remember,) your record was sealed or expunged. They all went on to finish 2 or 4 year degrees and enter the work force with a careers that were quite respectable and paid decently. They also all grew up a bit and began to behave more maturely. Although they all three still smoke pot and dabble occasionally in other drugs, they are all now productive members of society. In addition, back then, most employers did not run CBI checks. If you had a criminal record, you could lie about it on the application and get away with it. Today, there are few employers who do not run CBI's, and very few who will hire some one with a criminal record. Even misdemeanors or a record of charges that were dismissed will keep many employers from considering you.

In our society today, there is no second chance for some one with a criminal record. I think that has largely come about as the result of stricter laws around charges and sentencing for drug related crimes. Being legally heavy-handed has obviously not worked. But I don't think legalization across the board is the answer either.

Hard core, long term addiction is in the genes. What makes addiction so widespread is widespread opportunity and access. The likelihood that any given individual will have the opportunity to use an addictive substance to which they are vulnerable is greatly increased. That is the reason for the increase in drug addiction. That opportunity and access is a reality of our world today. Zero tolerance, hard criminalization of the behaviors involved with addiction do not work, but neither will legalization without numerous caveats and restrictions and significant elements of social control. I'll be the first to say I haven't an idea of what a workable paradigm would look like, but I know we need a new one.