That's certainly one thing it should be about. Whether it is appropriate for the government to decide what substances people are permitted to introduce in to their own bodies is an important question though.
Thus it seems the only way to quell the social damage of drug use of for the government to not only decriminalize everything, but to also ensure drugs are given away by community centers with specialized staff.
Alcohol was pretty unsafe during prohibition, often containing methanol, a toxin which can blind or kill. Legalizing it meant that anyone producing and selling impure, mislabeled or adulterated alcohol could be sued or jailed. The same could be done with other drugs.
[0] For human consumption
You can't OD on MDMA. You can OD on water.
LSD is mostly safe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysergic_acid_diethylamide#Poss...
Alcohol is mostly toxic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol#Al...
> I don't think a "pure" version of hardcore drugs are safe under any scenario.
One of these statements is wrong, and one is right. Which is which?
The abolishment of the FDA seems like a pretty drastic measure by any standard.
However effective drug legislation really -is not about this at all-. As you alluded to in your second point, it should be part of the broader system of minimizing the damage to society. Drugs are harmful -to society- when the criminal element is the sole distributor, when quality and dosages are completely uncontrollable, and price and availability of the addictive ish are unpredictable. Thus it seems the only way to quell the social damage of drug use of for the government to not only decriminalize everything, but to also ensure drugs are given away by community centers with specialized staff.