What Would Happen If Pot Were Legal for Adults?

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:34:15 PM EST
Tags: marijuana reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

What would happen if marijuana were legal? In the LA Times today, "This Bud's For You."

I always wondered what would happen if marijuana were legalized for anyone over 18. It seems it already has been, and nothing happened.

Except, people still get busted and go to jail.

Which reminds me, NORML founder Keith Stroup's trial for smoking a joint at a press conference in Boston begins Monday. Keith and his codefendant, High Times associate publisher Rick Cusick are challenging the constitutionality of the law criminalizing adult pot possession and use. They also requested a jury nullification instruction. [More...]

The defense will also file a separate motion requesting a special jury instruction to the effect that a juror has the legal right to refuse to convict an individual, even if he or she admits to the elements of a crime, if the juror believes the application of the law to that particular defendant would create an injustice.

If you're in Boston, head on over and show your support for Keith and Rick on Monday. Here's how to recognize them:

I hope they let Keith out in time for the NORML Aspen Legal Seminar June 6 and 7. It wouldn't be the same without him. We'll be spending one afternoon at Hunter Thompson's Owl Farm in Woody Creek again. If you're a criminal defense lawyer or if you're a medical pot user and want to hang with sympaticos, you're welcome to attend. Here's my video from our 2006 Owl Farm party and me interviewing Tommy Chong at Owl Farm in 2007. My topic this year: Crackadoodledoo! A New Dawn in Crack Cocaine Sentencing. Here's the full schedule.

Not in Boston? How about Minnesota? They're trying to get a compassionate law passed there and are running into trouble with false ads. The e-mail I received says:

We have a bill in the legislature that's already passed the full Senate and is pending a vote in the House any day now. Although it has had Republican support in the legislature form the start, Minnesota's Gov. Pawlenty has stated that he "stands with law enforcement" on the issue – meaning, presumably, in opposition to it and inclined to veto on the basis of a small but vocal group of prosecutors and law enforcement officials who have repeatedly testified against it through the committee process.
There's only one problem: these opponents – who so adamantly defend their right to arrest and jail the sick and dying for using marijuana with their doctor's recommendation – have made false claim after false claim, some of which have been outright lies.

They are looking for media attention -- the local press is ignoring it:

It's staggering that elected officials like County Attorneys and law enforcement officers are permitted to just lie about legislation and, when they're called on it, the media seems uninterested, no matter how well it's documented. I suppose this is in the interest of "balance" – and also why independent media and blogs like yours are so crucial.

< Obama Has Visited All 57 States But One | More On Psycho Ex-Girlfriends >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What Would Happen If Pot Were Legal for Adults? | 53 comments (53 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Just Say No to Drug War (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Athena on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:37:23 PM EST

The entire drug war should be scrapped. The privileged status that alcohol enjoys should be eliminated - by virtue of it being "legal." Make all of it legal but make addiction more of a medical emergency demanding intervention and treatment.

I disagree completely. (none / 0) (#7)
by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:46:53 PM EST

I will count; however, I think legalizing or decriminalizing pot is reasonable, considering how mild its effects are.
The best argument I have heard against legalizing other drugs is to to point out how much damage alcohol abuse causes, and note that if other hard drugs were legalized, we could see far more social problems as a result.
The reason other drugs cannot be legalized is that there are too many very potent, highly purified drugs available.
Do you really think that legalizing meth use will have a good outcome? I don't.


I don't think we'd see... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by kdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:12:15 PM EST

much of an increase in the negative impact addiction has on society if drugs were legalized. Anybody who wants to do drugs is already doing them...I know of no one just waiting for prohibition to end so they can get hooked on meth.

I think we would see a decrease in the negative impact of mass incarceration and police misconduct. Besides, more freedom to pursue happiness and living as we see fit as long as we don't directly harm anybody is always a good thing.


even if they did (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Jlvngstn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:27:34 PM EST

get hooked on something, does anyone think that legalization prevents addiction? AA is going very strong, prescription drugs addiction are live and well etc etc.

I can find no practical or logical reason for the illegality of pot, and have never read one argument that has moved me an inch.

I hate the addiction argument, there are addictive personalities and that group is going to get addicted to something. I would prefer they get addicted to pot. Alcoholics are a far greater drain on society from a medical perspective and the driving and the abuse on and on.

I don't know of anyone beating the crap out of each other on weed...


I think... (none / 0) (#26)
by Alec82 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:31:39 PM EST

...we'd see a rise in the use of certain drugs (LSD and other hallucinogens including ecstasy, maybe cocaine, maybe some amphetamines). But no one is going to touch heroin unless they have a death wish.

I don't know that it is wise to downplay the probable increase in drug use following either decriminalization or legalization. From what I remember from my econ days, most economists believe use will rise after decriminalization, and I tend to put my lot in with economists on this one. But the benefits, I think, outweigh that cost.


I probably down play it.... (none / 0) (#28)
by kdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:37:12 PM EST

because I see absolutely nothing wrong with the responsible use of intoxicants...and will never understand why people do. Getting high, when done responsibly, can be an immensely rewarding experience.


As it has been said... (none / 0) (#31)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:00:14 PM EST

...elewhere on this thread, you can find/use any kind of drug you want right now. Making drugs legal isn't going to make people run out enmasse and say I got to try it now.

Drinking before I was of age was fun and exciting because it was forbidden. When I became of age, it wasn't as glamourous.

As far as heroin/any opiate, cigarettes are much more addictive. Hillibilly heroin will screw up your life just as bad as heroin if you have an addictive personality. And that's legal.


: Legalize it all, save the cash, tax the sale (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by chrisblask on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:29:04 PM EST

and take those billions of dollars and do some good with them.
I've moved about ten years ago into the "legalize it all" camp. I can't imagine folks who are not doing heroin now suddenly running to the store to try it, and the people using it aren't having any problem finding it, now.
Just the three basic economic benefits are overwhelming, hard to imagine we couldn't do more good with that than all current efforts combined:
o Save billions on law enforcement.
- cops, jails, courts...
- Drug dealers and gangs buying guns with drug money? Gone.
o Tax drugs.
- billions in direct revenue
o Keep users working.
- Most drug users have jobs and families. Putting them in jail halts all tax revenue and drives up social assistance costs massively.
William F Buckley - of all people - got me started down this path with a guest on his show long ago who had done historical research and found that no society in all of human history has notably decreased drug use. When a society does a great deal to discourage drug use, he fixed percentage that do use drugs tend to cause more harm to themselves and society (harder/weirder drugs, more crime attached...). The Netherlands had (last I looked) an aging population of native heroin users - by just less than a year for each year since drug laws were changed - iow there were not many new addicts, and those who already were are aging. More teens looking for a drug experience just smoke pot, less go as far as heroin.
It would be great if everyone ate wheaties, jogged, drank green tea and did yoga. However, since that isn't going to happen, not making an inevitable situation much much much worse would be a really good start.
Besides, the very idea of gov't being interested in its citizens body chemistry is a bit spooky. Legislate actions, the reason for those actions is largely immaterial (crash a car? tired/stoned/stupid - don't really care - your actions have consequences...).
-chris

the "but addiction would increase!" (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by cpinva on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:06:40 AM EST

argument is and always has been a fraud, analogous to the "pornography causes sex crimes" argument. neither position has any actual empirical data to support it. they are purely creations of politics and religion.

actually, it has been determined, with actual real data, regarding pornography. just ask the commission that richard nixon established to determine that very issue. he refused to allow public release of their report, because it came to the exact opposite conclusion. so much for science in a subjective, surrealistic world.

as someone (probably several someones) noted already, there isn't a line forming at the rear, just waiting to get addicted to meth, or any other drug, once they're made legal. if you're addicted, legality is not an issue, treatment is.

to answer the original question:

not much probably, except: a. no one would get arrested for possession/use., and b. i wouldn't wake up the next morning with a hangover!

oh, wait, our law enforcement/judicial/penal system costs would drop significantly, and a lot of people would be out of a job.

maybe they could all find work in the local "head shop"?


: Pot farmers (none / 0) (#43)
by Pootsteen on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:53:10 AM EST

will be needed. Lots of new jobs!
Seriously, it is so sad that small towns rely on locking people up so they can make a living.

Meth could be mostly wiped out (none / 0) (#34)
by Pootsteen on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:02:12 PM EST

by the cold medicine companies if they wanted to.

There is a book written by a father of a meth addict, and I wish I had more detail right now, but some ingredient in cold medicines doens't really do much for us and they could just stop making it. If they did, no one could make meth in their home with easy to obtain stuff.

I say, let emergency room workers decide what should be illegal. they see the effects and none of them see any pot overdoses or pot-fueled violence (not counting dealers shooting at each other)


: Any push to reduce (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:37:43 PM EST

the number of people we incarcerate, sadly, would probably need to be paired with the creation of jobs, because you'd always get the reaction from some that it would mean less prison guard jobs. Pretty sad that we have to lock each other up so we have something to do. So many other 'jobs' in this country that need to be done, we just have to put the resources behind them.

Yes - legalize it, all of it (none / 0) (#24)
by NotThatStupid on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:26:17 PM EST

But only for adults, same as alcohol.

Then regulate it and tax the h*ll out of it -- think of the revenue available from that source.

Prohibition is what keeps the price of drugs as high as they are - with decriminalization, the prices will drop and the criminal activities associated with the manufacture, transportation and distribution of drugs will diminish because of the dwindling profits and the exposure to government regulation.

Make driving under the influence of (any) drugs the same as current DUI laws.

Laws should punish actions that injure or endanger others, not one's self. If a person wants to get high in the privacy of his/her own home, without infringing upon anyone else's rights, who cares?

If a crime or misdemeanor is committed while a person is intoxicated by (any) drugs, punish the crime or misdemeanor.


Legalize it and go after its use like alcohol (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by davnee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:59:06 PM EST

Stiff penalties for driving under the influence. Large sin tax attached, with some of those funds being redistributed for education and treatment. Prohibition of public use. Massive penalties for sale or distribution to minors. I'd be down with that. But I confess that when we move beyond pot, I get squeamish about legalization of drugs.

Pot should be legal (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by Katherine Graham Cracker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:00:52 PM EST

There is nothing wrong with smoking pot. Ask Michael Pollan. The only thing wrong about it is that it is illegal. The pot laws are stupid and have been used to hassle people. In Cal although they are not supposed to go after patients they do. John Conyers just had a hearing to ask the DEA why they were bothering medical marijuana patients. The expense is enormous and beyond dumb.

: Pot found to cause 0% of cancer (none / 0) (#48)
by chrisblask on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:35:36 PM EST

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
This one is two years old, a more recent study confirms it.
The granola-crunching potheads actually have a statistically-insignificantl lesser occurrence of cancer than the general population. Seems there may be a slight cancer provention (can't find that reference atm).
-chris

Keith Richards said it best..... (5.00 / 5) (#22)
by kdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:18:56 PM EST

"I never had a problem with drugs...only with policemen."

My main concern (none / 0) (#2)
by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:38:37 PM EST

would be how to prohibit users from operating automobiles or otherwise endangering other people. Other than that I'm fine with it.

Isn't sorta already illegal to drive (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:40:11 PM EST

under the influence?

I suppose you could do a publicity campaign.


In CA its .08 BA or (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:42:51 PM EST

driving under the influence of alcohol and/or any drug (prescription, legal, illegal, etc.)


I'm not aware (none / 0) (#8)
by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:48:54 PM EST

of any means of proving someone is currently under the influnce of THC. Breathalyzers are one thing, but field urine testing?


Couldn't they do a hair follicle (none / 0) (#12)
by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:56:05 PM EST

test or do a blood test like they do for folks that they aren't able to get a breath test from?


Urine or blood when booked; (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:58:02 PM EST

if tox. screen is positive (no quantitative, and no way to tell how long in system), officer testifies to driving behaviour, observations, field sobriety tests, and, perhaps statements by the driver.


Or how about simply... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by kdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:15:03 PM EST

punishing reckless driving regardless of the content of the offender's urine, blood, and/or hair follicles.

Personally, I'm a little tired of people getting harassed when they blow a .0001 over the limit and are a real threat to no one.


Most people (none / 0) (#27)
by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:33:10 PM EST

who have lost a loved one to a drunk driver don't care about someone feeling "harassed" over what constitutes intoxicated.


: Speaking as someone who could (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by kdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:46:20 PM EST

have easily been killed by a reckless driver once in a bad wreck...the fact that the reckless driver who could have killed me was sober was no consolation.
I've got no problem punishing people who drive recklessly, anybody who puts others in danger that way is an assh*le, I just don't see the what difference it makes what the assh*le's b.a.c. is.
Driving stoned ain't smart either, but it's nowhere near as impairing as alcohol. Worrying about a rash of stoned drivers is silly, imo.

I want to see how (none / 0) (#4)
by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:41:43 PM EST

all the anti smoking laws will mesh and I want to see the advertising.

I want to see if the federal law (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:43:54 PM EST

will change; otherwise, the state laws are not the shield many think they will be.

The tax payer (none / 0) (#9)
by magisterludi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:49:32 PM EST

would save a ton o' cash, for one.

I think it absolutely ought to be legal for (none / 0) (#10)
by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:51:08 PM EST

medicinal use. I'm not keen on legalizing recreational use but am opposed to lengthy prison sentences for it's use. Make it a finable offense and use the money for education and rehabilitation. This one area is the area my husband is more liberal then I am. He says legalize and tax it. Then again, he is more knowledgable then I am. I'm probably one of the only living adults I know that has never tried the stuff.

My sister never has either.... (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by kdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:17:46 PM EST

and I smoke the stuff everyday...one of us must be adopted:)

It's a liberty thang...I don't think the collective has the right to stop me. I view picking the buds off a plant and smoking them as a fundamental, unalienable human right. why you gotta fine me? I'm not a bad guy, I swear:)


What would happen (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Claw on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:05:51 PM EST

What would happen if pot were legalized? I'd lose clients and frito-lay stock would skyrocket...other than that...

Joking aside, it's very sad to watch someone accept a plea bargain that causes them to lose a scholarship/job/spend (reduced) time in jail, for a pot-related offense. I don't smoke the stuff but I know plenty of responsible members of society who do. These are people who get up, go to work every morning, and relax (with varying frequency) with a glass of wine or beer, and a little marijuana.


I also like having (none / 0) (#38)
by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:40:31 PM EST

control over my own body...it is a liberty thang. It's no one else's business (except perhaps loved ones if I were to have a problem).


I do have some concerns over (none / 0) (#46)
by cawaltz on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:37:50 PM EST

safety to the body and I also worry about the youngsters. I know it is far from the worst thing out there someone can do to their body and it isn't physically addictive but I worry about the psychological aspect. My hubby is a huge proponent of legalizing it. I would love to see some honest studies done it and some education out there that isn't propoganda. I definitely agree with my husband when he says that it really isn't the "gateway drug", alcohol is. Anyway, on this particular subject I have alot of room to grow and develop. I KNOW that there are alot of nice, decent folk out there that smoke pot(yourself certainly included). I also know we waste tons of money incarcerating people for crimes that are victimless if you discount the drug user as a victim.


: I'm glad you have an open mind.... (none / 0) (#53)
by kdog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:43:56 AM EST

most people do not on this issue. 70 years of lying propaganda is a tough road to hoe.
I will say if pot were legalized it would be more difficult for kids to get their hands on it. When I was in high school I could buy a dime bag in the lunchroom, getting a beer was a lot more difficult. Something else to thik about...

Federal Prosedcution... (none / 0) (#11)
by Alec82 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:55:55 PM EST

...in CA, at least, is largely limited to those who dispense the marijuana and possession charges for those who bring it onto federal land.

The medical marijuana movement is not the way to go, however. While I don't doubt people suffering from cancer, AIDS, etc. would find it beneficial, I'm guessing that it is very easy to find doctors to issue the prescriptions. Thus, I go in, complain of anxiety and insomnia and presto, marijuana for six months for moi.

The states should just decriminalize it for those 18 or over, including distribution, enforce the DUI laws and let the federal government commit its resources to fighting the drug war. Do it with all the drugs, control the locations with zoning and the federal government can decide it it actually wants to fight this.

Anxiety and insomnia (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:48:26 PM EST

Thus, I go in, complain of anxiety and insomnia and presto, marijuana for six months for moi.

And this would be a bad thing how? Anxiety has driven people into the grave, insomnia can wreck your life. Let people smoke a joint so they can sleep, it's just humane. Many of us have to consume addictive stimulant (caffeine) just to get going in the morning, and we don't consider ourselves junkies (except in the funny way). And I think watching Chris Matthews dumbs you down more than pot ever could...


I've read it is just as harmful to (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:59:33 PM EST

smoke marijuana as a regular cigarette.


: No (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:18:55 PM EST

This study says that smoking weed is even better for you than not smoking at all, regarding cancer that is. But then again, we have had this conversation before.
One of the big points of getting it off a Schedule 1 is that the Federal gov will not fund research drugs in that category. Like LSD it has been demonized and the gov actively prevents research on those drugs. Sad and stupid, imo.

: even if it is (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:40:33 PM EST

which it isn't, who cares? shouldn't we be allowed to choose what we do with our bodies? to me, how can we talk about freedom if we aren't really free to treat our bodies as we wish?

: In fact, they study the lack of lung cancer (none / 0) (#36)
by Pootsteen on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:10:46 PM EST

in marijuana smokers. there is some protective effect and the last study indicated that it might be that pot kills cells that are already damaged, so it it certainly benign. (depending on the papers and if you have bad stuff full of pesticides or something)
We have a friend who is a Harvard law professor who does a lot of charity work in Jamiaca. He says there is no increase in lung cancer there and no effects on babies of mothers who smoke.

I doubt mos doctors are that cavalier (none / 0) (#17)
by cawaltz on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:03:01 PM EST

There ARE side effects to using pot and I would bet that THC would be a last alternative for something like anxiety or insomnia. That said, if someone has problems with nausea and has a terminal illness I see no reason that pot shouldn't be prescribed. Likewise if you have RA and it helps suppress your immune system so you have less pain and your body gets a break from attacking itself than I don't see why it couldn't be prescribed. It's totally wrong how the drug comp[anies hve stymied efforts to legalize it for medicinal use simply because they can't figure out a way to capitalize off it.


The side effects are exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:50:47 PM EST

...why people with certain conditions use pot. It is a good treatment for some people with anxiety or insomnia.

Chronic wasting syndrome + side effect of pot = increased appetite.

Migraine + side effect of pot = relief

Like all chemical compounds, it effects different people in different ways. However, you can't OD, it is very easy to titrate your dose--heck you don't even have to smoke it.

But, I probably won't see it legalized in my life time. We can't even make it legal to grow hemp with its one hundred and one uses.


: Migraine relief? (none / 0) (#41)
by Chimster on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:28:18 AM EST

Are you sure? I get migraines and had no idea the stuff would actually help. I'll have to look into it. :^)

I don't think most are... (none / 0) (#23)
by Alec82 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:21:20 PM EST

...but I think there are enough to make it easy to shop for one who will give you the prescription.

Again, I favor decriminalization of everything. It isn't going to happen anytime soon, I realize, but it is the most sober policy choice (pun intended). But with marijuana it is particularly amusing: We're talking about criminalizing the possession of plant life.

It may be it is more difficult to obtain medical marijuana than this article lets on, but having worked on federal misdemeanor cases in California it seems pretty easy from my vantage point.

What do you think, though, about forcing the federal government to shoulder the costs of the drug war? Or at least efforts to combat marijuana use?


the drug war (none / 0) (#32)
by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:39:20 PM EST

is one reason why i came within a heartbeat of voting for mike gravel on tuesday. hillary was my choice, but she seems to be for more of the same. we need real leadership on this issue and we're not getting it.

It will undoubtedly become legal (none / 0) (#40)
by Chimster on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:26:06 AM EST

in my lifetime and I ain't over the hill yet. If you look at where this drug has been in the past and where it is now, pot has become more and more accepted. The city I live in (Denver) voted recently so that it's no longer against the law to posses a small amount of pot. Though the Federal law trumps state law I suppose.

Anyway, I can't wait to walk into a 7-11 some day and buy my first legal cannabis cigarette. It will be the savior of Tobacco companies.

: I wish I shared your optimism... (none / 0) (#44)
by kdog on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:48:03 AM EST

but I live in NY, and NYC is one of the league leaders in marijuana arrests.
Half the population doesn't care because their vice is legal, and then you have the monied interests profiting off of the prohibiton. It's a tough road to hoe, I'm afraid reefer will be illegal for generations to come...to the detriment of life, liberty, and happiness.

: Yes... (none / 0) (#49)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:35:04 PM EST

...we also made it the lowest enforcement priority, but they're still out there making busts. I sure as heck wouldn't walk down the 16th Street Mall smoking a joint openly.
It is going to be a very gradual thing, unfortunately. King Soopers isn't going to be selling joints anytime soon. We should just be happy with liquor on Sundays I guess.
As to your migraine question--yes. But, like I said, it effects everyone differently.

what would happen? (none / 0) (#45)
by white n az on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:55:20 AM EST

Tax revenues would soar
It would cease making criminals out of a large class of the citizens
It would be good for business
It would reduce the load on prisons

I think the same was true when the prohibition of alcohol was repealed...it seems as though we never learn.

it would (none / 0) (#50)
by INEUMAWKY on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:57:19 PM EST

the national debt would be gone in a matter of 5 yrs heh heh

A Plea From CA Growers (none / 0) (#51)
by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:38 PM EST

Let Us Pay Taxes

As I saw on a program dealing with the drug war (none / 0) (#52)
by splashy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:00:36 AM EST

Where a bunch of former law enforcement people were talking about the silliness of the drug "war" - There are three options when it comes to just about anything that people want to do, be it drugs, prostitution, or so many other things (including abortion, I might add).

You can let the government handle it.

You can let the private enterprises handle it.

Or, you can let the criminals handle it.

We have turned drugs (at least the illegal ones) over to the criminals by making them illegal, with all the attendant problems that causes. Crime rates, incarceration rates, and addiction rates would all drop if we just stopped letting the criminals run things.

People will do what they will do. We as a society have to decide how we are going to deal with that, hopefully in the most constructive way. It's more difficult when there are gobs of money involved.