The article makes eminent sense. A harm reduction approach is far better public policy than prohibition. It substantially reduces the black market and everything associated with it. We don't bat an eye at some "drugs", such as caffeine, alcohol, or (to a lesser extent) nicotine, but we make others illegal. The social costs from alcohol are staggering (absenteeism, reduced productivity, violence, accidents, health care, etc, etc), but recreational use of the drug is completely accepted. And governments tax the heck out of it. There's no logic to the current way we think about "drugs".

What's missing from the discussion is serious consideration of demand. WHY do so many people want whatever a drug gives them? To self-medicate for physical or mental health issues? To "escape" from miserable circumstances? "Just for fun"? Let's have a serious discussion of why the demand exists in the first place, and formulate public policy that focuses on demand reduction and harm reduction.