1. Pharma lobbyists
2. Private prison lobbyist
Afaik, my state has no private prisons. They do have 25,000 prison guards who are a powerful lobby in the state legislature.
For California Prop 64 of the $2,077,438 spent in opposition $1,364,000 (65.6%) came from Julie Schauer.
The only other major donor was Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM Action) which donated $489,150 (23.5%)
The California Teamsters Public Affairs Council donated $25,000 (1.2%) and the Peace Officers Research Association of Claifornia PIC donated $25,000 (1.2%).
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana...
In both cases the majority of support for the opposition came from a SINGLE WEALTHY INDIVIDUAL - not "private individuals."
I am not sure if the Teamsters directly represent police officers but they are a union and Peace Officers Research Association sounds police related so you are right that some vaguely "police" and "union" related groups did donate a relatively insignificant 2.4% to the opposition campaign, but that is it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/03/big-pharma-m...
And that was one company.
(Not denying it is the case, still, it's very curious it ended up that way)
That should say: government prison lobbyists. See: how government police & prison lobby groups have fought against pot legalization for decades. They have far more money and influence than the private prison industry (and that was 10x more the case 10+ years ago, when the private prison industry was hardly more than a pebble).
Those with the most to lose from pot legalization in terms of money, are government employees. The extreme majority of all the people put in prison during the US prison boom, went into government prisons staffed by government employees, and were arrested by government employees.
The war on drugs was a government program, that benefited the government by dramatically increasing its power and scale in just about every possible way. The private prison industry was tiny before year ~2000 (and it's still a small minority of the racket, which still mostly benefits the government).
The government prison complex is worth hundreds of billions of dollars per year. All that profit extract goes into the pockets of the government employees (and to a lesser extent, government contractors that build prisons etc).
Show me the labor cost of all the government employees related to the prison system (including the unnecessary police/arresting-related employees) over the last 40 years, inflation adjusted. Here's a hint: it's over a trillion dollars and makes the private prison money look like a joke.
CoreCivic is worth $3 billion and does $1.8 billion in revenue. That's equivalent to the salary & benefits of about 20,000 cops. There are two million (that's 100x the size of CoreCivic) people directly or indirectly employed by the government prison system, including 1.2+ million that are employed by state & local law enforcement agencies.
The income & benefits for those two million workers that are feeding off the government prison complex, is worth at least $150+ billion per year.
Politicians also love the government prison complex. It supports their power by making sure taxes remain artificially high, which keeps their slush funds higher, and they can basically build jobs in their voting districts with government prisons.
This doesn't make any sort of accounting sense. This doesn't keep taxes "artificially" high. That money is collected in taxes because there is a very expensive program that needs to be funded. There no greater opportunity for embezzlement in your scenario than out of your scenario.
Your argument is fine without this claim, though. LEO unions are profoundly fucked up institutions.
I think for most young people it's obvious that cannabis should be legalized and regulated like other "vice" substances like tobacco and alcohol. I'd stop short of wanting to legalize "hard" drugs, but I would like to see a focus on addiction treatment rather than virtual criminalization of the addicts --I'd still be for criminalization and controlled distribution of drugs that can have immediate deleterious effects on people's health, wellbeing and functionality. Alcohol, while dangerous, unfortunately is well ingrained in society, so even though it qualifies as dangerous, it might have to remain an exception, given it would be hard to extirpate (see prohibition in the various countries and its lack of success).
The only reasonable exception I can see is substances that alter behavior in a way that's likely to endanger other people (e.g. those that induce aggression). Ironically, though, alcohol would be relatively high on that list compared to most everything else.
None of these points would apply if those hard drugs are legalised and regulated, of course. At that point, I'm less certain about the right thing to do. Should the government sell clean versions of ecstacy, heroin or any of the other million synthetics available? I honestly don't know.
If it were legal, they wouldn't be called gangsters, they'd be called Heroin Distributors, LLC.
Who's really the root cause of the problem here? I'd argue the gangsters are a symptom and the laws are the root cause.
I buy the thrust of your argument, but please note that it really does require a more multi-dimensional analysis.