Final thought, I have a good friend who smoked weed for 18 years. When his first wife gave him the ultimatum (the drugs or the family) he threw her the car keys and told her to "get the hell out of my house". So she left with their two daughters. It wasn't until his second wife gave him the same ultimatum with their son that he finally gave it up. He told me later that anyone who says that marijuana is a harmless drug doesn't know what they're talking about.
You or someone else has posted this exact story on here before. I appreciated it both times but it doesn't sway my opinion at all. It gives the case for not ingesting altering substances but excludes just about every other aspect.
That being said I'm not for all drugs being legal (meth and PCP and most super laboratory drugs are just too unpredictable), but any plant (and that does include opium and mushrooms) should be illegal, especially when really dangerous plants are perfectly legal to grow (like the castor bean plant, which contains ricin, an extremely deadly substance).
I disagree with the notion that lab made = bad, and natural = maybe ok. Also, comparing growing ricin with the intent of killing someone is an entirely diferent dynamic than the controlling substance circumstance. It's a nice zing to throw but really doesn't add any substance. This is about individual liberties and that should not be weakened with some well-this-is-legal-so-that-should-be-too rant.
You do realize that the decrease in alcohol consumption post-prohibition was short-lived, and that by the end of prohibition, alcohol was being consumed more than it was before prohibition, right? Aside from that, prohibition was a boon to organized crime, and as a result led to a huge increase in violent crime, especially in urban centers. Not sure if you like gangster movies, but a huge portion of them take place during prohibition for a reason.
So alcohol prohibition did nothing to curb alcohol consumption or abuse, led to an increase in organized/violent crime AND was costly to the American tax payer.
I'm not comfortable accepting either of those huge leaps in logic but I could be persuaded if anyone really cares to take up the case. I thought most criminologists--or whatever we should call them--go with some sort of displacement theory. If the criminal Kennedys aren't running booze then they would find another avenue to divert their ciminal attention into.
To me, the first fallacy seems to weaken the pro-pot position by insinuating that legalizing pot would actually lower the user/trier rate. I don't think that is something we can prove but I do think it is a notion that does not help the pro-pot cause.
Take a look at the Mexican cartels, competition for turf in American ghettos, broken families as a result of non-violent offender's having trouble finding work because they're felons or because they're in prison (keep in mind, something like 80% of the funds for the War on Drugs are for prosecuting marijuana crimes, and almost 90% of the marijuana arrests are for simple possession). And all this for billions of dollars!
1. Cartel wars over pot?
2. This new prison-industrial complex should scare the hell out of every citizen alive.