Same way alcohol is legal but you shoudn't be drunk in the streets.
Marijuana is demonstrably less harmful than alcohol. It being illegal is flat out insane and can have no explanation other than ignorance, stupidity, or malice.
I definitely think that non-addictive psychedelic drugs with no demonstrated human toxicity (or not exceeding OTC drug toxicity) should be legal. Perhaps there should be some restrictions. I would be in favor of some form of licensing or gating to set some minimum level of personal responsibility. Maybe if you freak out and end up in a psych ward or commit a crime you lose your license. I'd put it in the same category as driving a car, riding a motorcycle, operating a motorboat, etc. People are going to be stupid with LSD but people are stupid with motorcycles and rock climbing and those are legal.
Harder drugs? I'm open minded. I used to be against the legalization of heroin, crack, cocaine, meth, etc., but then I read up on Portugal's experience with heroin and now I'm more open to the idea of a pure harm-reduction approach. But I am wary of these. Alcohol is legal and there are alcoholics everywhere. I don't think criminal prosecution is the right tool for the job, but I also am not sure we want more of that.
It's not easy to accidentally overdose on a drug when it's sold in standard doses, especially if dosage information is presented honestly. The government's position on drugs only serves to increase the rate of overdose among the population using them.
Also, it seems unlikely that the $hundreds of billions/year hard drug trade is driven by proceeds of petty crime+bottle redemption+welfare+other money sources traditionally associated with the destitute. It seems much more likely that the people buying most hard drugs are people with stable income.
Or regulatory inertia, or differing priorities, or effects you don't recognize / didn't account for, or...
Apart from those outliers I listed above, the only common negative result to people other than the user is their lack of productivity and the economic implications of that. And even of those outliers, most users are not addicts and do not hurt others with their drug use.
I'm not sure what you mean by modern takes on democratic socialism. Sanders is most certainly not a socialist, if that's what you mean, despite being for a progressive welfare state. If one upholds private property rights, they are not a socialist. Democratic socialism simply is socialism where socialist economic structure is ushered in by means of the bourgeois democratic system as opposed to (or at least in unison with) revolutionary movements.
That's one issue. Another is having a feasible way to transition from what we have now. The latter is probably the trickier one.
> I'm not sure what you mean by modern takes on democratic socialism. Sanders is most certainly not a socialist, if that's what you mean, despite being for a progressive welfare state.
I mean democratic socialism roughly as Sanders describes it, although there's obviously a big range even within the modern definition. So yes, just western democracy with the government doing lots of social programs. Not real socialism.
What if reading hacker news at work results in you losing your job and becoming dependent on welfare, should we outlaw news sites?
You have a right to drug use in private or where everyone present consents to your using drugs, like in group psychedelic rituals.
What I mean is, if you think about extreme situations, drug use will stop people from being able to provide you with legal rights. But forget about drug use, if everybody quit their job - which is totally legal - you wouldn't have any legal rights either.
And outside of the realm of people doing paid work, a child has the legal right to be raised by a non-abusive parent or guardian. If the parent is fucked up all the time, legally and at home, that child is having its rights infringed upon. Whether the government intervenes is another question.