This'll be a long read. If there was a simple solution there wouldn't be a problem. Actually I think the solution is rather simple but the horror stories of drugs have been pushed so much people are unable to look at it objectively.
First step is to realize there is no solution that will stop people taking drugs. Or even kids from taking them completely.
I think we can drastically decrease drug use and dependence if we start looking at this objectively rather than emotionally.
We have three drugs that are legal, coffee which is pretty benign. Children buy it legally.
Alcohol, which kills about two million people annually, contributes to a lot of violent crime and is actually pretty addictive.
Tobacco which kills 7 million and is highly addictive, a drug that is up there with some of the worst illegal drugs.
Then we have a group of about 1000 illegal drugs (the ones you've heard about are just a tip of the iceberg) that have been banned because of their psychoactive nature. In among that thousand you'll find drugs that are worse than tobacco, you'll find drugs that are worse than alcohol but safer than tobacco and you'll find drugs that are worse than coffee but safer than alcohol.
Hell there might even be psychoactive drugs that are safer than coffee.
So first step would be to admit that drug prohibition as we know it is not based on how safe or unsafe these drugs are.
Obviously that should change.
Second step would be to admit that banning drugs hasn't really decreased their use. If anything the majority of data states the opposite.
My solution? The state takes over drug dealing.
Kinda sounds crazy but drug dependency isn't a profitable business for government. The medical costs, lost labor costs etc will outweigh any revenue made on a new system or taxes received under the current system.
With illegal drug dealing still highly illegal and the state offering legal, regulated drugs without dangerous adulterants the illegal drug market will be decimated as the risk to reward ratio is smashed.
This in itself will drastically reduce kids ability to get drugs because drug dealers will be government payed without any incentive to sell drugs to kids and serious disincentives like jail.
The drawback is that I think for this to be really effective the state needs to legalize and regulate every street drug with a substantial market. This includes the heroins and the crystal meths.
This sounds scary but if you legalize and readily supply a whole bunch of the formerly illegal drugs that are safer than alcohol along with the other street drugs you instantly have a mathematical advantage.
If there's 40 legal drugs, 15 are common street drugs and 25 are "new" drugs that are safer and less addictive the odds are just on chance alone people will be less likely to take them.
Then you have massive advantage in that people don't want to be drug addicts, or die and given the option they'll flock to the new safer less addictive drugs over all the common street drugs let alone the heroins or the crystal meths.
Even better yet once the market is controlled you can implement and effectively monitor and compare policies in different states aimed at further deterring people from taking crystal meth or heroin or whatever else.
Sure meths legal, but you need to see a addiction specialist once a year to get the license required, or the price goes up .5% more than inflation while everything else increases at inflation.
Literally any hair brained idea can be implemented and it's effectiveness assessed.
Drug prohibition started in the 1930's. It's coming up on 90 years.
I think you give my system 90 years meth is no longer a thing. It's not illegal but with safer, cheaper alternatives that are less hassle to buy and 9 decades of trial and error of strategies to decrease meths use the demand will be so low that they just won't be produced anymore.
That's the solution.
