minotaur says "Decriminalise drugs and only let registered users buy from pharmacies. Give much heavier penalties to trafickers and dealers, particularly if they deal to children."
I don't think you have thought this through properly Minotaur. That will not remove the black market. The vast majority of drug users are not addicts and would never consent to becoming "registered drug users". Therefore, other than for the tiny minority who are addicts, nothing will change.
Penalties for traffickers could not get much harsher than they already are without becoming absolutely absurd.
There are many dangerous things in life and drugs are just one of them. We do not blame the manufacturer when a young man dies on a high powered motorcycle. In a legalised environment I could not imagine any drug being as dangerous as a 1,000 cc motorbike. And I would most certainly be very worried if any child of mine were to purchase one.
Society needs to stop trying to enforce moral values with the criminal law. In a free society adults should be legally entitled to make their own decisions on what they consume, and to make their own mistakes as well.

Nowhere did I say decriminalisation of drugs would eliminate the black market. There is a black market in tobacco and that is a legal product. Quite simply (for those who need it basic) it is ridiculous to treat drug addiction as a criminal offence when it is a health issue. If people want to use drugs on an occassional basis then let them but if they can buy a drug from a registered pharmicist it is a lot safer than getting it from a dodgy dealer on the street. Sure, some people would still take the risk but that comes down to personal choice. By the way, registered addicts (depending on the drug addiction) can get legal and chemist issued methadone, which in itself is not exactly a benign drug. If they can do that then why not extend it to heroin or morphine? Decriminalisation won't lead to eradication of the market but it would shrink it and therefore make it easier to police.

Minotaur,
You seem to support addicts being able to obtain their drugs legally at a pharmacy, but want unproblematic users to still have to deal with criminals and face prosecution if detected by the police.
If you can see the benefits for addicts, then why should the rest of the drug using population remain the focus of police attention. Why is drug use a "health issue" for addicts, but a criminal justice issue for non-addicts? Likewise, if it is OK for a pharmacist to supply, say cannabis, to an individual, then why should a non-pharmacist be thrown in jail for doing the same thing?

This argument is also complicated by the fact that some drug dealers are also drug users, having to sell drugs to support their own addiction.

I think an holistic approach to dealing with the drug problem is far more likely to work than anything else e.g.

. counselling for those trying to block out serious emotional problems
. rehabilitation
. jail terms for those heavily trading off other people's addictions
. a job or voluntary work to keep unhappy people busy and lift their self-esteem

I would also argue that a 1000 cc motor bike, which is highly dangerous, is far less deadly than currently illegal drugs, whether bought in a pharmacy or on the street.

minotaur,

You say the taking of illicit drugs is a health issue, and I assume you mean for people who are suffering from depression or are generally unhappy with their lives for one reason or another - rather than referring to the recognised minority suffering pain from a physical condition (and who should therefore be under medical care). Can you think of a better way, or ways, to assist the depressed/unhappy than the legalisation of illicit drugs? (Given that the taking of mind-altering drugs does not solve the underlying problems, and can and often does have bad side-effects - like addiction.)

You also seem to say that the taking of illicit drugs is a matter of choice. Can you think of a way, or ways, whereby those people would choose not to take drugs? Would a drug-free society not be a worthwhile objective - leaving moderate alcohol and tobacco consumption on the table as acceptable socially?

There is strong indication of a wide social use of illicit drugs (rave parties, private social gatherings), with perhaps many first-time users (and some resultant deaths from Ecstasy, and incidents of date-rape). We know, or assume, that illicit drugs are used as a 'social lubricant', but if it was your kids would you be happy with this, or would most parents?

I would rather see a world without marijuana, opium, heroin, cocaine, meth, Ice, Ecstasy, etc, - except for genuine medical treatment. Would you? Is there not a greater downside than upside?

Is there not a greater mind-altering impact from any of these illicit drugs than can ever be achieved using just alcohol or tobacco? And, is this not reason enough to ban their non-medical use?

Do you see what is happening in drug producing countries (to users as well as to pushers)? Thus, are the wider community of casual and addicted users and pushers not also a part of the problem?

"I would also argue that a 1000 cc motor bike, which is highly dangerous, is far less deadly than currently illegal drugs, whether bought in a pharmacy or on the street."

What do you base that on lorikeet?
How many people has cannabis killed this year? What about ecstacy? What about amphetamine? The only drugs I know of that kill people are heroin (because it is illegal the potency is unknown to the user), tobacco which kills about 20,000 Australians a year and alcohol which kills a few thousand. We hear of the occasional ecstasy death but these are nearly always the result of the pills NOT being ecstasy. Again a result of the black market caused by prohibition.
224 motorcyclists were killed on Australian roads in 2010. How many people died from cannabis use given that some 10% of Australians smoked cannabis in that year? How many died from ecstasy?
Even accepting that some illicit drugs are highly dangerous, this is no reason for the criminal law to be involved. There are many dangerous activities people engage in. We don't throw them in jail for it though. The only reason drugs are treated differently is because some people think altering your consciousness is morally evil, and they think the rest of the population should abide by their moral standards using the criminal law to enforce this.
No different to the way homosexual sex was once treated.