Quick thought experiment...

Same addict in two societies.

Society 1) Drugs are regulated in pretty much the same ways they are in the US, and because of this prices are high. The addict may have a family or maybe not, but has bills to pay. He spends all his money on drugs leading to neglect of his bills. He gets arrested and is now unable to hold down a job. This leads into other problems after he gets out of legal trouble. He now has to steal to obtain the drugs.

Society 2) Drugs are largely decriminalized and cheap enough that a days supply for any addict don't break the bank. He doesn't lose his job because of legal ramifications and he just spends all his free time doing cocaine. He doesn't have to steal to obtain the drugs.

In the US, minorities in cities live in Society 1 while whites in suburbs are in Society 2.

I think you might have an exaggerated idea of how addictive illegal drugs tend to be compared to alcohol and tobacco. Heroin and Meth actually are more addictive[1] than legal drugs, but not magically so. Still, banning just those two drugs would be a coherent policy, unlike our current laws that also ban Cocaine, Marijuana, normal Amphetamines, LSD, etc.

[1]http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/2006451...

Like tens of thousands dying in the global drug wars annually, mixed with the cultural destruction we see in America's inner cities and with two million people in prison from drugs?

I don't see how you're going to stand any chance of causing more problems than that.

Cocaine has gotten cheap enough that anybody can try it if they want to. In the 40 year war on drugs, they've had a nearly unlimited budget and all the time that could ever be needed, things have only continued to get worse. The Cartels have already taken over every city in America, and they literally control portions of the south west. It's time to neutralize them, and the only way to do that is by destroying their profit centers with 'free market' competition that they can never beat (government regulated ala alcohol).

Only the government can create organized crime. And it's always through prohibitions of activities that should be legal.

There's plenty of organized crime arranged around things that should be illegal, for example slavery.

There's no organized slavery without complicit governments.

Bah, there is plenty of slavery without complicit governments.

Typical example: Criminals lure naive poor country girls with prospects of lots of money and a job elsewhere. As soon as they arrive to the destination country, they are held captive (they steal everything they own, and use violence) and then used as prostitutes. I fail to see government help in this scheme.

"The government" is absolutely complicit in that crime because they turn a blind eye to it.

Do you think that the cops don't know about Backpage or other prostitution outlets? Do you think that law enforcement is impervious to corruption?

I don't know about the US, but in other countries, slavery prostitution outlets are indeed persecuted and closed once found. Other prostitution outlets are tolerated (or encouraged.)

My point is even assuming incorruptible law enforcement, these outlets would still exist, might last less if you wish.

From there to saying it's a government sponsored slavery is a big step.

The government is complicit by keeping it illegal.

If it were legal, it could be taxed and regulated like anything else. Most people are OK with letting others do what they want with their own body. It's certain puritanical, tyrannical, authoritarian and powerful government factions that don't allow that.

I'm not sure that by legalizing prostitution the slavery outlets would disappear.

I think it depends on the government. If the taxes or regulatory fees on legal prostitution are too high, it can create a black market similar to that of tobacco or pharmaceutical drugs.