Sure, economic theories suggest that legalizing would eliminate black markets and cartels by lower prices.

However, that is not the only reason.

Some suggest marijuana use related deaths are higher than suggested statistical accounts, most deaths of any drug is caused by hack drugs, so if the substance is legal, hack drugs would be eliminated because these drugs are made to feed on the weak and desperate and everyone will have access to pure and quality product.

How would they raise revenue?

First, there would be legal producers and distributors.

Then, retailers would open legal businesses across the Nation, and the government would obviously receive sales tax and they would enforce a sin tax just like cigarettes and alcohol amounting to 8-10% on every ounce.

Then, the government could enforce the myriad of rules and regulations akin to tobacco and alcohol companies on how they can produce, distribute, and sell.

Plus, there could regulate any advertising and marketing. They would only have marketing towards the dangers of drugs as they already do.

Then they could enforce how it is consumed by what age requirements, certain times of the year or day. Then if they feel that it endangers others, they would enforce laws akin to drinking and driving.

Such drugs have well-known side-effects. Many will argue that people have a right to do with their body what they will - but these drugs take over the mind, which make users a danger to others.

Which is the case whether they are legal or not. The difference is if they are legal you can institute regulation governing their use to contain the effects. Make it legal to dispense and take the drugs with the highest degree of mind altering effect only in a supervised environment for example so nobody goes wandering off into traffic while they're under their influence. You can't exactly do that now.

A lawyer could easily argue that, seeing how the drug was legal and his client was well within his rights to use such a dangerous substance, the client was not guilty - indeed, that the law is at fault.

And the lawyer would lose since his client would have had to give consent to take the drug knowing it's effects before he was under the influence of the drug, and assume responsibility for the consequences. Yet another thing we can do if the drugs are legal but which is impossible if they are not.

Others argue about taxes - how it will raise revenue.

My response is this: Does it really matter about the money? When did the American people sell their souls and become so greedy as to accept such a monstrosity.

Yes... lowered instances of disease, lowered instances of adverse health effects due to low quality substances, reduced crime, less violence, higher economic prosperity, and people treated like adults and permitted to make their own decisions about their own bodies... monstrous indeed.

(To be clear, if the drugs were legalized I would ridicule anyone who chose to take them as a moron... but it would still be their choice.)

This a manner of personal freedom. In America we pride ourselves with the fact that --more so than any other nation-- we stand up for the rights and liberties of the individual. How can we ,then, justify making cocaine and other illicit drugs illegal while at the same time alcohol and tobacco (both of which are arguably more just as, if not more, dangerous)? It's hypocritical to allow these substances while continuing the ban of these other drugs. Of course, I know these drugs are harmful; but that is no sole reason to ban something. If we banned everything that was dangerous there be no: automobiles, sports, guns, electronics, and hot beverages and foods. It's time to face it; people will do dangerous things, they can't be stopped. Why not legalize these drugs; then the government can both tax and regulate said drugs. The underground gang violence would diminish and people would be more open with their drug use making them more likely to go into rehab or get medical attention when they need.

It is not the government's business to regulate my body; it only needs to protect my rights from being infringed upon by other individuals.

The first step in dealing with a problem is having accurate information relating to the problem. Prohibition, by its very nature makes getting accurate information much more difficult. It's not like drug dealers will willingly submit their annual sales reports for inspection. How can you guarantee that a drug user will truthfully answer phone surveys conducted by a stranger (especially since many drugs increase paranoia), or that they even have a phone to answer? Basing rates on incident reports only tell us how many people are getting caught or ending up in the hospital, but millions of users avoid these extremes regularly. When you see an estimate of drug use in the US, ask yourself: how can this be accurate?

Further, do you think a drug dealer is going to be willing to take someone to the hospital if they OD in the dealer's living room? A legitimized dealer would be more willing do so, as would the friends of the person ODing.

If drugs are illegal, people are less willing to seek out counseling and treatment.

If people are going to continue to do something that may have long term health problems, they should be taxed so that the problem can pay for itself without draining taxpayer money from folks who don't use. And why should taxpayers be forced to pay for the WOD if it doesn't work?

For those who feel that people who commit crimes under the influence should receive an additional charge for drug use, simply think outside the box. Make use of the drug legal as long as no other crimes are committed at the time. Should the user break laws when under the influence, THEN you can charge them for their use. In a way, charging people for drinking and driving serves as a precedent.

To see the harmful societal effects of illegalizing a substance: research alcohol prohibition in the US during the early 20th century.

To assuage fears that legalization will automatically increase rates of addiction or use, see Portugal's most recent drug policies.

"A lawyer could easily argue that, seeing how the drug was legal and his client was well within his rights to use such a dangerous substance, the client was not guilty - indeed, that the law is at fault."

At best the lawyer could only claim his client had diminished responsibility for the crime, which would be correct. However if evidence is there to suggest the crime was in any way pre-meditated then there are no grounds for said diminished responsibility.(That is UK law at any rate, I expect it is much the same in the USA however).

1 thing i need to bring to your attention.

the coca leave has been chewed for over 8000 years by the inka people. coca consumption Has many great health benifits, but our country decides to "suggest" to Peru and Bolivia in 2008 to abolish or prohibit activities...such as coca chewing and tea drinking. What right should they have to tell people how to lead there lives.To be told whats right and whats not. WE CHOOSE weather or not to smoke a ciggerette. We choose weather or not to have a drink. Were choosing if we want to smoke a joint or blow a line, we all still know a way to get it. So honestly by the government telling us not to, there putting us in a more dangerouse sitiuation if we decide to. Honestly if you think about it, alchohols the most dangerouse of the bunch!

People are always going to have drugs. You cannot get rid of drugs. The difference is that if you legalize them, people will be going to rehab more often then prison.

Drugs should be legal and get treated like alcohol. Heavy laws to regulate the usage of them, but not a ban on them.

We should also make programs like AAA stronger, more forceful, more efficient, and mandatory in many cases. That way they'll actually cure people of bad drug habits without turning them into lunatics.

Lastly, if all drugs are legalized, they can taxed, distributed through safer channels, and therefore be safer and more helpful to society overall.

That doesn't make them good for you, but like I said: you cannot get rid of them.

I've always said that weed is not a drug only because ive never heard of someone dieing form weed whereas someone OD'ing off cocain.