The paper you cited managed to provide my criticism for me. It looked at one specific aspect that was irrelevant to my argument: which isn't accountancy based nor a support of the current system (which adopts non-optimal punishment systems and unnecessarily inflates costs)

The war on drugs is inefficient. The correction required should continue prohibition. If you're suggesting that correction is unconstitutional you're also suggesting that your constitution embraces coercion (as externalities are a form of coercion)

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

Peer to Peer's are put out to be evaluated by one's peers for input prior to being "published".

Some externalities should be ignored. You cannot legislate one without opening the door to legislating them all. Think of what a wonderful world that would be.

Yet you ignore any that don't coincide with your views. What is the difference.

Your disregard of best practice has already been accepted.

Nope. The only issue is the optimal response to the coercion generated. The protection of property rights is usually the best possible option, but of course irrelevant in this circumstance

Nope. I've reviewed the literature, ensuring a significant shift in my position.

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

Reiver,
I see no point in carrying this dialog any further. Unlike some people, it's not what I live for. We are never going to agree on anything. I think that is the point with you. Maybe on a different thread I wouldn't find your penal code of ethics so disturbing. In the final analysis I find that You cannot legislate a frame of mind without becoming tyrannical. I could be wrong, but I'm not.

Indeed. Until you've bothered to read the literature you're not going to have much to say

__________________
I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I watered it in fears, Night and morning with my tears; And I sunnèd it with smiles, And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole, When the night had veiled the pole: In the morning glad I see; My foe outstretched beneath the tree.