It is a response to:

> The government strains, at extraordinary expense, to pretend they can stop drugs from being made, bought and sold, but they can't.

My point is that whether or not something still happens once illegal does not have much bearing on whether it should remain so. Nor does it signal failure of the policy as long as there is reduction.

Because marijuana being illegal did reduce the production, and consumption.

Did it? You're relying on surveys on people self-reporting illegal activity and comparing it to post-legalization data. There is a lot to think about in regards to these issues and I suggest you maybe read up on it some more if you are interested.

In the meantime, before legalization, weed only become stronger and more readily available. Many teenagers could get it more easily than booze. That was with the government at all levels doing everything it could to stop marijuana use. With many ruined lives of otherwise free people coming with those polices.

Honestly, I don’t know, when the initial google searches confirm what I see around me, I don’t spend that much time diving in. It is laziness on my part.

At least in my circles, usage has gone up significantly.

Did reduce the consumption, or did reduce the voluntary admission of (illegal) consumption?