To what do you refer? Honest question; I don’t know if I have an answer.

A question that should be asked is, does the damage that comes with prohibition outweigh the damage that would result from liberalization? IMO, the answer is yes: just as Al Capone got his start under Prohibition, the vast amount of drug-related violence is violence resulting from the fact that there is no legal avenue to buy or sell drugs, and the fact that demand for drugs is high. It is hardly realistic to think that buying drugs at your local PotMart would lead to nearly as many deaths as buying them from Ricky your friendly neighborhood drug dealer. The fact that drug-related violence is down in Portugal and the Netherlands, where there exists some form of decriminalization, is telling.

This is besides the fact that those who favor drug criminalization favor a law which, if 100% enforced, would have roughly half of our population behind bars, including our last three Presidents (well, that last part could be seen as a plus, for some ). The burden of proof should be on those who want to restrict our freedoms, and I see little evidence on their part for their claims. Their argument, in fact, is very similar to the Obama Admin’s “jobs created or saved” rhetoric concerning Stimulus II.

match those of alcohol and cigarettes for the softer drugs like marijuana, and that the harder drugs should be somewhat decriminalized but subject to copious regulation on both the supply and demand side (much more than is currently the case for alcohol and cigs).

I help out at a women’s shelter, my mother works at a rescue mission (a ministry that helps out the homeless), I used to help at a rehabilitation center, and the church I go to focuses on drug and alcohol addiction. It really is, unfortunately, more tragic on the extreme ends than the stereotypes of the guy eating Doritos on his couch or the affable stumbling drunk would have you believe. Cases of addiction can range from pathetic to heart-breaking, particularly in the case of relapse (which is all too common). At the same time, it is still within the choice of the person, even in cases of extreme drugs like Crystal Meth, and at any rate, I’d rather have corporations get the proceeds and profits of an addiction under a regulated system than have it go towards FARC, the Yakuza, and the Taliban’s less than honorable investments.

Here follows the longest non-answer not delivered by a politician — be prepared

What you’ve mentioned is a potential problem with legalization: however, it is an ongoing problem right now, and is potentially worse than it would be otherwise because there is already a larger illegal market that doesn’t care about keeping its business license, deliberately targets youths, and is easy to keep underground. In the case of legalization, there will be some potential for similar dynamics, but without the economies of scale or funding of organized crime and terrorism ongoing with current drug consumption. Moreover, the development of social norms regarding drug use in the public sphere and giving drugs to minors would, one would hope, be better than keeping all of that behavior underground, as is currently the case. The status quo of criminalization does nothing to resolve this problem: through high school and college (both of which were fairly suburban experiences), I had easy access to drugs had I wanted them, and it’s much worse in inner-city, less-polished areas. In short, criminalization does little to reduce access long-term, and unless we were willing to establish a veritable police state with 1/4 to 1/2 of our population behind bars, that would always be the case. Legalization at least offers the hope of social norms, more church and community involvement in dealing with the problem, and making the illegal market much smaller, more expensive, less reliable and redundant (pre-teens and teens aren’t the most reliable customers), and less likely to be funding narcoterrorism. Who knows, we might even get ahold of the Holy Grail of regulation and find a way to curb second-hand usage through smart implementation of the same. We know that the status quo isn’t preventing the outcome you (rightly) fear, so why not give something else a shot, especially when that something else is more conducive to liberty? I wish I had a more optimistic or positive answer, but in this case, easy answers come hard.

On the issue of other countries and how they’re doing, I’ll venture two thoughts:

First, most of the reason for lower productivity is restrictive labor laws and a higher tolerance for less hours. There are too few countries with liberal laws on drugs (to wit, only Portugal and the Netherlands have undergone major decriminalization efforts), and they haven’t suffered appreciable effects from legalization.

Second, it appears that drug use is actually down among the 18-30 demographic in both Portugal and the Netherlands, which doesn’t directly answer the question of whether minors and others without access to drugs are a problem, but at least indicates that they are less so as they grow up. Seeing as how equilibrium is fragile in the case of drugs, and that research as to why there has been a decrease in drug use is ongoing and inconclusive so far, I see this as very weak evidence for drug decriminalization at present, but it is encouraging at the outset, and at the very least doesn’t confirm some of the fears among drug warriors so far. (Again, I’d like more data before coming to a conclusion on the perplexing data results before declaring it a win for drug legalization.)

Most of the plunges into legalization and voluntary association in the 20th century were accompanied by fears that (thankfully) proved to be unsubstantiated: Prohibition’s repeal was better than the alternative, the volunteer army wasn’t short of volunteers, and deregulated industries didn’t destroy themselves (if anything, the more regulated industries like our financial sector have destroyed themselves). Betting on the American people has proved to be a good bet for most of those who’ve bet on them, and I hope and truly believe that those who do the same in the case of drug legalization will have their bets pay off, as precedent would indicate to be the case.

“Do you think the drug cartels and dealers will just give up their business?”

No, their business model will simply be untenable. The markup on drugs in the illegal market is currently very high (somewhere in the neighborhood of 20000%; that’s not a typo), both for not terribly addictive drugs, like marijuana, and harder stuff. Yet, the profit margins in the underground economy are “only” 300%. What gives? What gives is that they already pay the punitive “tax” of having to fund their armies of thugs, underground networks, pay off the cops, and pay various other expenses that keep their illegal operations from being discovered and apprehended that wouldn’t be the case in a legal setting. Let’s assume that, after the regulation, and after the government takes its cut, businesses are left to play with about half the money they make. That means that, if they price their drugs at the same price as drug cartels, they’ll get 10000% profit minus operating costs. That’s a lot of profit, and it will attract a whole bunch of investment and competition, lowering the price and the profit made by businesses to the point of equilibrium. That’s textbook economics, and it makes all the sense in the world for consumers to switch en masse to clean, well lit stores that sell their drugs for much cheaper than the drug cartels can, due to the fact that they don’t have to maintain what is, in effect, a standing army an spy network.

“I presume you still agree that legalization will make access even easier.”

Anecdotally, no. It was harder to get alcohol than it was drugs, though both were easy to get. Drug vendors don’t care about the age of the kids buying; neither do alcohol sellers, but they care about keeping their license, and thus, most underage drinking occurs because a middleman will sell the stuff.

“There may be a lot of alcoholics around, but as a percentage of total drinkers, it?s small. I?m not sure the same will be true of drug users, once hard, addictive drugs are readily available.”

The percentages of addicts to both marijuana and alcohol are roughly the same (10%), though you’ve got a point about the harder drugs. There is a certain measure of selection bias, as well; someone turning to the black market to get something probably isn’t interested in casual use, though considering that a little less than half of all Americans have tried some illegal drug, that may not be a tremendous effect.

“Regarding your final paragraph, I suggest that there is a significant difference between hard drugs and alcohol, so prohibition isn?t relevant except in the abstract.”

Stats and arguments made were very similar, particularly for the softer drugs, so I see it as a valid comparison. The fact that proponents had to get an amendment indicates that the War on Drugs is un-Constitutional, as well, which should be important for conservatives.

“Like ObamaCare, the decision to decriminalize, if carried out on a grand scale, could do irreparable harm. Which of course is why the initial call is just to legalize pot. (As an aside, does anybody want to legalize meth? Meth is deadly in multiple ways, and as near as I can tell, it can?t be used by anybody who leads what we would call a normal life. Criminals love it, though.)”

Incrementalism is fine with me, and in fact preferable. I prefer incrementalism with regards to rolling back the welfare state, as well, essentially for the reasons that you cited, as well as the fact that sweeping changes are tantamount to social engineering, and that incrementalism allows individuals and businesses to ease into the “new normal”. Just so long as there’s forward motion. Don’t know too many in favor of legalizing meth outside the hard Rothbardian anarcho-libertarians; I’m more of a Milt Friedman or Hayek type, so I don’t mix with that crowd.

“My belief is that if legalization of PURCHASE AND USE doesn?t come with draconian penalties for SELLERS to those who don?t qualify to buy, our problems will get worse.”

Agreed. Would also have draconian fines for businesses that purchase or contract with terrorist organizations, or nation-states on the State Dept terror sponsor list.

Conveniently enough, Reason Magazine interviewed a former cop from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) on the subject of child and teen drug use and legalization. I wish I’d posted it yesterday; it’s good stuff coming from a former drug warrior, and he makes a better case for it than I did. Check it out if you have the time:

must be separated from drug-related crime for ULA’s statements to hold true. Data definitely indicates that much of the violent crime results from prohibition, while the property crimes are more ambiguous.

There is no way for organized crime to change its business model without dropping the “crime”: their massive network and funding for criminal activities are a cost that would likely never be lower than the costs imposed by even the most stifling of regulations and taxation (though to play devil’s advocate, government regulation has proven resilient at killing all sorts of business ventures, so who knows), and are one that is necessary for evasion from the police. For this not to be the case, economic laws would have to flip completely around.

Anecdotally (there’s that word again), school-aged kids could get alcohol from three sources: parents, a party, or by looking old and having fake ID. Drugs were much easier to get: they were sold on school grounds and pushed by kids as young as fourteen.

If you’ve got time to kill, here’s National Review’s famous article proclaiming its official editorial stance against the War on Drugs. It’s interesting in that many of those involved initially supported the War on Drugs, including Bill Buckley.

Just like Xerox tried to stay in the computing business after getting trounced by PCs, and Palm tried to stay in the PDA and smartphone business after the iPhone and Android phones came on the market, they can only fight reality for so long. Organized crime might find some other wonder product or horrific practice that people want, but it won’t be drugs, for the same reason that it isn’t alcohol today, despite the fact that Al Capone made a killing on bootlegging: people respond to incentives, and safety and cost are pretty big ones.

Concerning your son, I get carded a lot, too (though I am somewhat younger than your son). One store owner refused to believe that I was over 21, despite my ID! Suffice it to say, it’s both flattering and irritating