> That said, I'm fine with legalizing marijuana. Not so much so with the likes of cocaine, meth or heroine. Soft drugs, sure, hard drugs, keep a leash on it.

I realize that this is becoming a popular opinion, but why? I almost understand the full prohibition mindset more.

as long as there are any illegal drugs with strong demand, people are going to get killed over it. legalizing weed isn't going to make much difference; there's way more money in the hard stuff.

so I gotta ask, do you think you will personally be hurt if hard drugs are legal (or even decriminalized), or are you taking it upon yourself to protect other people from themselves?

Is it wrong to want the others around you to not have access to drugs that can destroy their lives?

I'm of the legalize everything mindset, but heroin (and fentanyl) have killed many people I personally know. Weed has not. It is not illogical for people to want to treat them differently.

Trying to keep the drugs out is clearly not working though. Someone who wants the drugs will always find a way to get access to them. Even in prisons people manage to get to drugs. If we can't even keep them out of an environment that's as controlled as a prison... Meanwhile lots of harm comes from unreliable quality of drugs. This is something that a regulated market is well suited to address.

In addition, it seems like drugs are frequently more of a symptom than the root cause of problems. Happy people with a fulfilled life rarely OD.

Not wrong at all, but not wanting others to have access to drugs and supporting laws that marginally accomplish it at great cost (esp. to other people who may not be around you) are two different things.

> Is it wrong to want the others around you to not have access to drugs that can destroy their lives?

it's fine for you to want that; it's not okay for you to support the use of state violence to make it so.

I also have lost many friends and years of my own life to heroin. worrying about the cops didn't help any of us.

You can decriminalize possession of small quantities but still make the drug's production and distribution illegal. Instead of state violence (which is basically moot in a decriminalized use environment), let's talk about the violence of addiction [to hard drugs]. It does violence to mind, body, family and many other things.

> You can decriminalize possession of small quantities but still make the drug's production and distribution illegal.

sure, this at least makes it possible for drug users to seek help without fearing legal repercussions, but it doesn't do much to stop people from overdosing due to inconsistent purity and nasty cuts (eg, fentanyl and friends). it does nothing to stop the killings in source countries and poor communities where drugs are sold.

> I realize that this is becoming a popular opinion, but why? I almost understand the full prohibition mindset more.

I was simply trying to explain why. I think the full prohibition mindset makes no sense personally. It would include more state violence, so I am confused why you think that is as valid as the parent comment's opinion of treating each drug differently.

I'm sorry for your loss.

No one is getting killed by fentanyl on purpose - those deaths are the direct result of prohibition. Until it is legal to buy clean drugs, people will continue to be killed by dirty drugs.

I'm afraid the analogy to prohibition doesn't work.

Following the end of prohibition, beer truck drivers became beer truck drivers, bartenders became bartenders, but the violent criminals moved into other rackets: drugs, prostitution, gambling, extortion, and the big one corruption. What are the violent element and the large number of financially distressed workers in the rural pot industry going to do?

Once you create a criminal class, it does not go away. Only the Chinese, the Filipino, and the Argentine governments have found the means to eliminate these classes. Their means are far too brutal to mention here. I would never advocate them. We are mostly helpless.

I live in Mexico half the year. Once pot is legalized on a widespread basis, these *s will show up at my door demanding $100 a month or else.

Don't get me wrong as I believe there is nothing we can do. Perhaps improving the situation with vigorous law enforcement would keep the problem under control.

All forms of crime are not fungible. Drug prohibition is hard to enforce because none of the parties involved object to the transaction. Extortion rackets are not scalable - at least one party is inclined to look at law enforcement as the hero in the story. Corruption isn't something you just set up on a street corner. Prostitution isn't that big of a business and at the end of the day, the prostitutes really don't need you. Gambling is already legal pretty much anywhere there's an Indian reservation (here in the US, at any rate).

The criminal class may not go away immediately, but you can take away most of their income. No other form of crime is as lucrative. Drugs really are special.