> And yet decriminalization has proven tentatively successful when trialled.
It's more of a logical thing than a physical thing. If you can't justify throwing a cannabis user in jail, how do you justify throwing a cannabis seller in jail? It's ludicrous! If you can't justify throwing someone in jail for smoking weed, how do you justify fining them $100?
It essentially encourages organized crime. You're feeding a black market that has no competition, for chrissake.
> I think it is absolutely fine to talk to people about their "bad" life choices.
Of course it is. I make no claim that you can't try to tell someone not to smoke weed, only that you oughtn't try to force someone not to smoke weed. And that's what prohibition is, and that's also what the goal of decriminalization is.
> it's not so readily available that it becomes the kind of widespread habit smoking became.
It doesn't matter! If 24% of the country wants to smoke weed, then 24% of the country can smoke weed! I think you'll find, though, that most people choose not to. This is another assumption that I think gets ignored: "if weed is legal, everyone will want to use it" -- well, hell, if everyone wanted to use it, they would already. Most people don't want to use it. If that's your main concern, it's worth pointing out that it wouldn't matter if weed were sold in every gas station in the country: cannabis usage probably would never rise above 15% or so. It's already 11%, according to the WHO. A lot of people don't even like it, if you read bluelight. This is the third thing that bugs me: somewhere along the line cannabis became the best feeling ever. I like alcohol more than weed. I smoke (vaporize?) weed more than I drink because the negatives are less severe.
> Agreed, ny friend was not one of them though.
But that's what they all say! Everyone's friend was perfectly happy. People who burn out don't do nothing -- they while away their time playing video games, or masturbating (ya rly), and slowly neglect things that they may have once enjoyed. That said, I accept what you are saying.
It's true: some people do get addicted. But punishing everyone because some people react badly doesn't work. More to the point: punishing me because someone got addicted is being a dick. Punishing the guy who sells me weed is still being a dick. Punishing the guy who sold your friend weed is being a dick.
I'd like to make a potentially difficult claim: selling cannabis to a burnout is not necessarily wrong[1]. It is not entirely the responsibility of a seller to control the use of their product. The image of a predatory dealer who pushes cannabis on an addict who is trying to quit[2] is, in my experience, largely false, especially among the affluent and the well-educated. It happens, though I can't think of any particular instance. It can't happen under a system of legitimized commerce. It is frightening to see people use it as an argument against a system of legitimized commerce.
[1]: In a world where cannabis is legal, they would be responsible for adequately and accurately informing the user of the risks of cannabis, verifying the user's age, and possibly for providing information about treatment for cannabis addiction. All of these are good things. All of these can't happen under prohibition or decriminalization. In fact, the only way I can see to blame a drug dealer is if they claim that their product isn't addictive -- which doesn't happen, and can't happen, in the world of legitimate commerce.
[2]: The image of a dealer who gives out free first samples of extremely addictive things is a little more grounded in reality. Cannabis is not one of those things, in that I hope we can all agree that it is not extremely addictive.
EDIT: Slight, but significant, modification to last paragraph. I intended to clarify that the provision of cannabis is not a problem in and of itself -- there are of course unethical things that a dealer can do and may have done in your friend's case.
ps: Personal freedom is a hard argument to make, and it can be a bitter pill to swallow (Farnsworth: "now, if they could put it in the form of a suppository"). I think that's why tax revenue dominates the national stage. I don't like it, really. Instead of having to make a difficult -- but ultimately sensible -- decision, that might establish a serious, meaningful precedent, we are instead distracted by the prospect of more shiny things that we might get.