I'd like to apologise for the delay in my response. Dex asked for a reasoned vision and so I wanted to think about it some. I know what I believe, but putting it into words is more difficult than I thought. Most people either already agree with me or aren't interested in listening.
There are two aspects of this conversation - if marijuana and other low impact drugs were legalized, and if all street drugs were legalized. I'll answer in two posts. First, because it's so easy, marijuana, hash, and anything else that is basically equivalent to or less dangerous than alcohol. Some people would include psychedelics (shrooms, peyote, etc) and ecstasy in this class. But I'll stick with pot and hash for now. And I'm going to completely ignore the political aspects of the issue, since they have nothing to do with reality, only perception. I'm also going to pretty much disregard the immense number of (non-criminal) people whose careers and lifestyles are dependent on the Drug War, and who would fight any change that might effect them financially. By far the biggest opponents of the end of prohibition are the criminals who currently make billions per year on filling the orders.
I believe if these items were available legally, the major societal changes would be a huge decrease in
1) the number of people in jail whose lives are ruined and whose assets are confiscated
2) the multi-billions of dollars wasted on our current (and unsuccessful) prohibition
3) the deaths (civilian, innocent and guilty, and police) associated with the SWAT style arrest attempts of users and low level dealers. Also the incredible overcrowding of our court system. And maybe the use of snitches trading lower sentences for turning in other people, some of whom are very low level or completely innocent.
4) the exposure to the criminal underworld of people who just want to have a little fun
5) the massive profits of said criminals, who would lose their markets overnight. This would also have the effect of de-glamourizing criminals and causing young minority children to stop seeing criminal life as the easiest way to succeed.
6) the preying on children of said criminals, while trying to create a class of customers
7) the waste of resources by LE, who could then focus on real crime (violence, robbery, rape, murder, ponzi schemes)
8) the profits of the black market which may have been used to finance terrorism
9) the excuse of the drug war in regards to the suspension of many constitutional and civil rights
10) the massive amount of street violence currently related to the prohibition.
I would like to make a point about that last item. I used to think the violence would end as soon as the prohibition ended. However, I think violence as a way to resolve disagreements has become so ingrained in society at this point that it would take a number of years to end it. This leads to some other aspects of ending prohibition that I believe would be a positive effect.
1) The huge taxable income from the sales to current (and a couple of new
) users.
2) The ability to redirect money currently expended on enforcing prohibition to try to resolve basic social problems - poverty, inequality, education. I know more money won't solve these, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. And many of these issues are the basis of the various addictions prohibition is trying to resolve. Also, by far the largest number of casual drug users (as well as abusers and addicts) are white. If drugs were legal it might help end the huge disparity in arrests of minorities, possibly allowing hundreds of thousands of fathers to be involved in their families, while holding down legitimate jobs. And it might help change society's image of minorities as criminals and drug abusers. Over time.
I also am aware that there will be some negative issues. The point about telling our kids it's OK to use drugs should be handled by education, just as it is now with tobacco and alcohol. It would be equally effective, or ineffective, depending on your POV. I would have absolutely no problem with not allowing the corporate entities to advertise the products, or to limit them just like with tobacco and alcohol. But the limitations should be right in line with beer and wine for pot, and liquor for hash. It's only fair.
That's about where I am with this part. Feel free to rebut or question.