Given human nature, that is neither possible nor realistic. The best we can do is to educate people about the dangers of drug abuse, and to reduce the risks. There is less risk to users or to the public if users were required to use and go through the high entirely on site while being attended to by professionals. Obviously there is still some risk, but it would dramatically reduce overdoses as well as reduce and contain incidents of violent drug-induced behavior if they were only using in places where they were being watched by professionals.
I agree in part. But what you put in your body has the potential to effect your behavior in ways you might not even predict. That's why I support allowing all drug use, but the more dangerous drugs should only be allowed to be taken and experienced on site and under watch of professionals. Mandatory trip-sitting. It could save a lot of lives. Many people who experiment with drugs would welcome a safe environment to do it in, and then if they have a temporary psychotic episode professionals can keep them and other users safe, so in the end it is just a bad experience and does not end in a tragedy.
As for drugs that are highly addictive I think the person should have to pay into addiction insurance with every purchase (including when you buy tobacco products, it is also a drug), which will then bail them out if they become severely addicted, paying for their habit while also paying for treatment. That way people will be less likely to steal to fund their habit. The vast majority of people who resort to stealing realize they have a problem, and so would instead agree to go into treatment if they were allowed to get treatment in a smoother less abrupt way, that is to say continuing to use while meeting with a counselor and taking steps towards abstinence or at least manageability (cold turkey is commendable and some evidence suggests more successful for those who see it through, but a lot of people won't even try to get clean if it's the only option presented). The insurance companies could judge whether adequate steps towards abstinence are being taken to justify the payments, thereby ensuring a person has to get help if they ever want to tap into the addiction insurance fund. Alternatively they should be allowed to post a bond to cover the costs of future addiction if they have enough money for it.
@ MasturDbtor you have an interesting point of view on the topic, but sadly their is one flaw that we are facing now, that if not addressed ruins your plan. Your plan puts a lot of trust in both insurance companies and as you called it treatment (I am guessing that means rehab, please correct me if I'm mistaken) I'll start with the rehab, people pay a lot of money for rehab with the system or lack their of, that we have today. Now the rehab companies have a problem, and that problem is is that they can't cure their patients with out going out of business. So rather than help the customer fix their problem, they help the customer get a little better, then set them off into the world again, fully expecting a relapse, bringing the customer back time and again. And that brings me to the Insurance companies, they want money, and this would make it easy for the insurance companies to prey upon the people who are addicted. You see, because they would know about the problem with rehab, they would be using the fact that the people keep having to go back as an excuse (and a pretty ligament one) to raise the rates every time the insurance is used, this means that the users will start to fear the insurance companies because they can't pay them any more than they already are, forcing them to abandon the legal tripping sight, in fear of being told that they need to go to rehab again, and again having their rates raised, (you can't just go to another insurance company, because they will only accept you if your able to pay, and if the whole reason why your going to them is because you can't pay the another company's rates makes them less likely to trust you to be able to pay theirs) Also as long as the insurance companies are making money, (even while paying for the rehab, they have no reason to stop the process and truly get their clients the help they need.
So in short, the plan is a decent attempt to deal with the problem but we can't use for profit companies because they will try to make money at the users expense, driving the user to less reputable options.
I'm not primarily talking about rehab, I'm talking about a "safe use facility" with a limit on how often the individual can use it and the size of dose they can take. Yes, rehab would be available, and some mandatory counseling sessions would be required if the person insisted on a certain frequency of use. However my idea is that people who want to experiment will experiment, so it's best that they do so in a safe environment under the watch of people who are trained to intervene and prevent overdoses, or to prevent people from harming themselves or others in the case of a psychotic episode. The environment could still be and should be fun (i.E. You can have a dance floor, a television set or even a movie theater, even a restaurant) since otherwise people won't want to use it. But the point is they would be under watch by professionals who can protect the users and the general public from serious harm.
As for the insurance companies I think we should get rid of them and make healthcare single payer. For drugs though I don't think the government should pay for people getting high, unless the person is certified as an addict, agrees to go to an in-patient treatment facility (and not just for the duration of each high like most users under my proposal), and agrees to comply with a treatment plan whose ultimate goal is abstinence from the drug or at least getting them down to a maintainable dose (in terms of amount taken at once and in terms of frequency of use) well below the limits imposed on most users.
@MasturDbtor, I disagree. You should not be required to be at a particular location and with a particular group of people (professionals, credentialed, certified, etc. ). Making drugs legal will not make other actions, like murder or assault, legal. Being on drugs isn't a defense for those actions.
By the same argument a person should be allowed to drive drunk just because they might not do anything reckless while driving.
I'd be open to allowing a person to get certification that they learned how to deal with the effects of certain drugs. For instance if someone had used LSD or mushrooms or Ayahuasca at one of these facilities enough times I'd be OK with certifying that they're OK to take them at home. I'd also be open to allowing professionals a license to trip-sit for people at venues other than a facility, but it would have to be a separate license with its own set of enhanced qualifications.
And for some drugs such as marijuana or alcohol I don't think restricting it to in-facility use is necessary.