The black market would be significantly smaller and that would reduce crime. Less crime and government spendling less money to regulate what people put in their own bodies are my only concerns.

High taxes would make the black market thrive and therefore they should be kept affordable. Hence, higher taxes just leads to higher crime.

Which is why it's foolish to sell it to big government progressive types with the "Hey, guys! We can regulate it! Think of all the tax money!" pitch. It's the exact opposite of what needs to be done.

What ever drug you want sold by 13 yr old children, you keep that drug illegal and that's what they'll be selling.  I personally don't want 13 yr olds selling any drugs on any street corner.  Therefore we have to regulate and control all of them and take them out of the hands of the gangsters and thugs. 

Will drug use go up if you legalized drugs?  Well I look around vgchartz and I see abunch of potential crack users.  You're just waiting aren't ya!?  Aren't you all just waiting for that first hit off that crack pipe?  Of coarse not.. Of coarse not.. Lemme give you a little example.  Have you noticed over the last couple of years there are all of a sudden, in America, appears to be gay people everywhere?   Have you noticed that?  It wasn't like this ten years ago.  Ten years ago there weren't any gay people in america at all, now their everyplace.  Now, the only reason there could be more gay people is if people are changing, from straight to gay.  That's the only way there could be more right?  But we all know that isn't happening.  The only thing that changed was the rest of us stopped being jerks about it and now these people are willing to expose themselves and say, "this is who I am."  There isn't one more gay people in America than there was 10 years ago, they are just more visable.  When we legalize drugs, you are all going to be shocked at how many drug users you all know.  Because everyone on vgchartz knows an illegal drug user, I garauntee.  You may not know you know an illegal drug user but trust me; either at the workplace, at school, at where ever (you're family) trust me.  They're there, they just don't say that's who they are because it's illegal... and if they have a problem with it we can't get them any help because they hide and they don't tell us who they are.

We have to change this policy.

Awesome post, well said.  Only positive things will come from prohibition... maybe not from the perspective of gangs and cartels, but for the rest of us absolutely.

-There are more alcohol addicts per capita post-1933 than prohibition-era.

This first one is simple a lie as the standards and detection for alcohol addiction have increased, as is common for many conditions where better detection results in apparant increases.

-Alcoholism has had a massive burden on health care, organ donation eligibility.  Drugs do the same.

People are not walking bags of organs for you to harvest for the states benefit and they can do with them what they wish.

-Alcohol consumption has resulted in more accidents and has been a precurser to more violent and/or sexual crimes than there was during the prohibition.

This is also in the same vein as the first as crime against women was vastly under-reported at the time.

-Alcohol has almost no effect on blood donation as it is easily purged from the bloodstream, but drugs remain present longer and have a more pronounced effect on organs that affect the properties on one's blood.

People are not walking blood packs for the state to harvest and they can do with it as they wish.

-Racketeering and smuggling was rampant in that time, though I owe that more to deficiencies in the investigative techniques and technologies of those times.  

Racketeering and smuggling as absurdly rampart now given that increased efforts inly increas the cost of drugs and therefore increase the incentive to supply. Not to mention the large amounts of money we piss away trying to stop the supply.

-Average lifespan has since increased since 1933; largely due to antibiotics and vaccines--neither of which are effective against organ damage drugs are responsible for.  A greater accessibility to drugs results in increased use which results in adverse health effects.  This has occurred with alcohol post-1933. So it shouldn't be different with drugs.

When it comes to drugs legalizing as was done in portugal did not result in increased drug use but decreased levels. Drug use was not a big issue before we started fighting the drug war since before 1973 ad it will not be afterwards.

-When criminal organizations are denied sources of revenue, they invariably try to find it through alternative means, starting with an increased effort in their other activities.  This happens everywhere.  If drugs are part of their revenue, they will behave accordingly. 

They don't use other methods as much because they are less efficient at making money from doing so and their is greater risk. Many people would not go into crime if not for the easy money made by drugs.

-Fetal Alcohol Syndrome has since increased since 1933. This condition impairs one to moderate anger--such persons are far more likely to go to prison for violent or sexual crimes.  Similar conditions emerge when drugs are taken during pregnancy.

Yet again better detection results in higher levels appearing.

-The end of the prohibition era had the US aligning itself legally nearly equally to its neighboring countries.  If the US ended drug prohibition but Canada does not, the Canadian government will tighten its borders, and this means that the US will do the same.

If Canada does not want drugs in its nation thats fine but its not America's responsibility to protect their borders. Hopefully the success of ending drug prohibition will convince Canada to end it on their end.

-Dry counties still exist in the US.  When persons from said counties go to areas without prohibition, their alcohol intake increases on average.  Greater accessibility and less legal ramifications results in increased use.  This is reflected in insurance policies.  DUI offenses increase insurance rates across the board; with more people doing drugs, even the perceived increase of risk in certain age groups will result in higher insurance premiums.

Those dry counties are meaniningless as other counties surrounding them provice people who would drink alcohol normaly a place to go. For all you people who consume alcohol leave the county. 

-Those most likely to indulge in the increased availabity of drugs are those in their teens and twenties; since drugs have a measurably adverse effect on one's mental function (memory and problem solving in particular), average grades will predictably decrease and the average national IQ will reflect this.

If people want to do drugs instead of getting higher grades is it not their right as adults to do this? I'm sure that their are many factors that you could correlate with lower grades but we leavethe decisions concerning such factors to the person not the State, drugs should be no different.

In short, a lot of this happened after prohibition-era 1933, so there is little reason why it will be different.