The war on drugs has failed, but what should replace it? A powerful argument for defenders of the status quo has been that there is no viable alternative – that any softening-up on drugs would surely lead to anarchy, death, mass madness or worse.

But there are viable alternatives and today they are spelled out thoroughly and carefully in After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation. Written by Steve Rolles and fellow campaigners from Transform: Drug Policy Foundation, the book is launched today in the House of Commons. Blueprint shows that it is possible to have a grown-up drugs policy – one that lets people enjoy the drugs they like, in the ways they choose, within the context of a regulated market, with policies that reduce harm to users and protect society as a whole. Anarchy is not the inevitable outcome of ending prohibition.

We have five major options and it's up to us to choose.

These five, according to Blueprint, are:

1. Prescription – a medical model with strict control by professionals.

2. Pharmacy sales – with trained pharmacists who could offer advice and over-the-counter sales.

3. Licensed sales – something like we have now for tobacco and alcohol, with age and other limits.

4. Licensed premises – something like the Amsterdam coffee shops

5. Unlicensed sales with a more or less free market.

The last option does not seem very appealing, and Blueprint describes it as handing control of drug markets to exploitative profiteers just as surely as prohibition. So we probably have to find a solution with one of the other options. But the real point of this book is to show that change is possible. We can – and must – envisage "a world in which non-medical drug supply and use is addressed through the right blend of compassion, pragmatism, and evidence-based interventions focused on improving public health".

I was especially interested to learn what Blueprint says about specific drugs and how they might be handled. LSD, for example comes into the section on psychedelics, which points out that, though non-addictive, almost never fatal, and with no withdrawal effects, these drugs can precipitate psychotic episodes or lead to traumatic experiences and bad trips. They are also used widely for religious and sacred rituals and in some countries there are functioning legal frameworks for allowing such use. When drugs are used in this way they are usually taken only rarely, with many safeguards and in a social situation that provides a lot of support for people who may get into trouble using them. How nice it is to have this kind of responsible drug-taking discussed seriously.

Blueprint comes up with a discussion model for psychedelics based on membership of psychedelic groups or clubs, and licensed vendors with specific responsibilities as well as licensed users. Does this make sense? Would it work? I don't know. But then no one knows.

I can only say that I would welcome such a step. If LSD were legally available I personally would like to take it quite rarely – perhaps once a year or so – for the extraordinary insights it can give and the lessons it teaches. I am not alone: an online survey by Erowid of thousands of experienced LSD users showed that most would want to take it about once a year if it were legal.

I am much encouraged by Blueprint. I'm sure it doesn't have all the answers, but what it does offer is this: when the election comes, and if drugs become an issue, no one can say there is no alternative to prohibition. They can hold up Blueprint and say: "Here are the alternatives". Any of them must be better than the terrible harms that are currently being done to individuals and the whole of our society "clearly fuelled by the prohibitionist drug policies our governments pursue".