People have been saying this for years, with the securistas basically avoiding an answer. Now there's data. Will they still avoid having a conversation?
More states are pushing the same agenda, if the federal government doesn't object, why would there be a conversation?
Some, of course had turned their coats already at the time of repeal. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_State... )
Yes, but correlation does not imply causation, which might be the other way round: counties have decided to be dry because they have recognized they have alcohol problems.
(You can have the same debate about gun control, etc.)
But the causation may also be that being "dry" actually incites people to use alcohol. I'm in the North of Europe, a country where availability of alcohol is restricted (strong liquor only in state monopoly stores, beer sold only at specific hours and not to minors and not to those already under influence), and the drinking culture is traditionally binge-drinking. People take ferry trips to buy loads of cheap alcohol from the neighbours. They buy enough to last two months, and then they drink it in two weeks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouth,_Oregon
My recollection is that there were accidents outside of town because students would drive somewhere else to drink and then drive back.
Maybe you are overestimating how many people make this effort. For the most part, when you say "solved" most people will take that to mean "my side won" and when your side is for the criminalization of drugs a priori then if screeching and shouting and thinking about kids are what is necessary to get the job done, then that's what will happen. Most people don't do this on purpose, rather the thought never occurs to them to examine why they support a thing, i.e. what their goals are, and whether the measures they endorse to further these alleged goals actually do anything to accomplish them.
Why do people support criminalization of drugs? Do they just think that drugs are really bad and that people shouldn't use them no matter what? Putting aside for a moment whether this belief is justified, does the current regime even manage to reduce drug use? Maybe they just think that drug users are bad people and need to be punished, but I wonder what such people think of enriching drug cartels, which the policies they support tend to do. Then there is the harm reduction cohort, which is the one that I think has finally come around to the fact that criminalization isn't accomplishing that goal, and is why we are starting to see legalization after the destruction of millions of lives.
For example, the murder rate in prison seems to be actually lower than outside. There's also less risk of dying in a car accident, etc.
Before you get outraged, note that I'm only talking about health effects, not happiness or achievement.
Might end up with a few less killed violently. Might end up with more money to spend on social programs instead of militarised police. Might end up with much more tax from economic activity brought out of the black market. Might end up with less contaminated produce.
All of these could end up being better for the health of American citizens.
And even if not you're bringing your problems in-house rather than shipping them off to poorer places and causing suffering there.
With criminalisation we see drives to stronger forms of the drug (EG: bootleggers were mostly not selling beer, but spirits). Decriminalisation and legalisation would allow people to grow and actively market weaker forms of the drug.
Criminalisation pushes people towards unhealthier forms of drug taking because it's legally tricky to provide harm reduction information or harm reduction devices. Most people smoke cannabis; and most people mix it with tobacco. That's a pretty unhealthy way to take it. Legally being allowed to sell vaporisers would help.
I get confused about what is or isn't "drug paraphernalia" and whether it's legal or not.
Both of these can be solved by legalizing and regulating recreational drugs.