There's a lot of griping on Jeff Randall's side about the problems caused by drugs, but very little effort convincing the reader that drug legalization will increase those problems.
I found the half-sarcastic comment near the end -- boosting the drug war by taking all confiscated drugs and dumping them in the nation's prison yards -- beyond tasteless. Violent criminals and addicts would take the drugs, and become even more dangerous to the non-violent criminals and the guards in the same prison. IMO, it's sick that a LEO would have so little regard for non-violent criminals and his own LE brethren.
We don't know what drug legalization would be like, whether it would be better or worse than the status quo. Maybe there would be obvious differences, both good and bad, but still no concensus on whether legalization is better. One thing is certain, though. There is no Constitutional authority for a ban on drugs. Any LEO calling himself a U.S. citizen should recognize that.
Don't even start about how the SCOTUS has declared drug laws constitutional. Why then was there a concensus that we needed an amendment to ban alcohol back in 1919? Most of the social-conservative drug-law advocates also complain about the notion of a living constitution, but only a living constitution could require an amendment to ban ethanol in 1919 and not require an amendment to ban hundreds of chemicals in 2006.
I guess as long as alcohol is legal, the government can ban anything else!
Imagine a pathologically idealistic, anti-religious, culturally-relativistic, iconoclastic, socially-irreverent, sociologically-progressive signature line here. Or don't.