One long-term effect would be to instill a work ethic where it's currently nonexistent. As such, the prohibition of certain drugs is itself a violation of personal property rights. When he questions the libertarian's emphasis on property rights he legitimizes the government's drug prohibitions. The problems caused by prohibition are not simply practical. They are ethical as well.
Property rights are the basis for the entire U.S. Constitution.
For a person supposedly dedicated to individual liberty and common sense, Mr. Nadelmann's philosophy is entirely too inconsistent, filled with the caveats and personal biases that, if implemented, would lead to even more irrational policy. Even more nonsensical is the idea that drugs should be sold by mail but not on the open market. The basic fact that Mr. Nadelmann evades is that government has no legitimate business in the drugs arena. He seems to be trying to inch along the path of regulation, with bureaucrats deciding what drugs people can possess and use, in what quantity, and in what places. This policy is the same as prohibition, except that the individual decisions made by the bureaucrats might be less extreme than the decisions that are currently in force.