Let’s look at that, shall we?

A huge, illegal industry that costs roughly as much in taxpayer money to fight that it produces in sales.

An industry that “justifies” American intervention in the internal affairs of other nations while propping up drug lords and criminals, all while destabilizing entire nations.

An industry that produces no tax revenue while providing “products” with no quality control. The “customer” has no idea how potent their “hit” is while having no idea of what toxic substances it might have been cut with.

An industry where the supplier can enter on a shoestring while being hugely, staggeringly, amazingly profitable. So much so in fact that popular movies, television shows and music celebrate it and the lifestyle of those at the top.

An incarceration rate that rivals the most tyrannical nations.

An ever more oppressive set of laws that impact almost every one except the dealers and suppliers that they are “aimed” at.

These guys are small time. But they were able to profit with no real ability because America is fighting a stupid drug war.

Want to solve the crime side of the problem? Take away the money. Let legitimate companies compete in the free market. Let them produce a quality product with no adulteration. Let them lower costs and increase distribution. Let them be taxed and regulated. And I promise the bottom will fall out of the black market of drugs just as it did with the black market of alcohol.

I have a pass-along I often use when discussing gun control. ❝The people who follow the law are not the ones who should worry you.❞

What we’ve done long before “legalization” was incentivize the product by making it wildly profitable. We’ll be decades digging our way out of that. As hard as it may be for some to accept, the half-assed way we’ve gone about “legalization” hasn’t solved any of the problems. Rather than a moderate tax, politicos have determined that they can “control the behavior” by slapping on a high tax.

How many times in American history has that worked? There’s even a black market right now in plumbing supplies because politicos decided that we “needed” low flow showers and low flow toilets rather than what people actually wanted.

There are always going to be addicts and junkies. It could be rocky-road ice cream. It could be liquor. It could be pot. It could adrenaline. Passing more or “better” laws will not fix the addiction.

I’m libertarian, what some call a “classic liberal.” People should make their own choices AND accept the consequences. We attempt preventing that with Official® partial measures to control people. In my mind, laws should defend liberty, not dole it out as a “reward” because you did what some technocrat told you.

Mala in se translates to “bad in and of itself.” It’s a mala in se law if it’s against measurable harm to life, liberty and property.

Mala prohibita means “bad because it is prohibited.” These laws are almost never good laws. At least I haven’t encountered any.

As you say, they will never be responsible citizens. But we’ll never have a responsible government so long as politicos focus on the mala prohibita over the mala in se. It’s not government’s job to make my choices, it’s government’s job to protect liberty.

“It will not solve the problem, it will change the problem.”

There is not a THE problem, there are several problems caused mostly by making the drugs illegal in the first place. So we need to break it down.

For me at least, the biggest problem is an ever-growing “law enforcement” industry that is less and less concerned with protecting people. Police agencies all over the country have questionable actions funded by asset forfeiture. Think about that for just a moment. We’re paying police to steal. The police just need to allege that a crime might have been committed, and BAM! they get to seize the property even if charges are never filed.

“How do you take the money out? Legalize it? Are producers still liable for lawsuits?”

Who is liable for lawsuits now?

Pot can be produced for pennies a pound. Since it’s not fully available nationwide, the regional price remains higher than it should. Beer is cheap. Johnny Walker Red is much more expensive, but still reasonable. Competition drives the price down, the quality up, and distribution all over. It’s true for socks, it’s true for computers, and it can be true for any drug you name provided there’s no government interference.

And no, the Feds should not be providing anything, free or not. They don’t understand accounting.

The reason why the drug crime bosses can make so much money is because the drugs are illegal. We know this. The exact same thing happened during Prohibition. Once they have the money, unethical people use money and power unethically. Look no further than your Congresscritter and his donors for proof.

The only way to stop the crime bosses is to starve them. Nature Made would make cannabis capsules much cheaper than the street cost right now.

The welfare state is a relatively recent development that came from the same impulses that gave us Prohibition, the national income tax, and direct election of senators.

Charity used to be private. The Tragedy of American Compassion explains how public charity displaced private charity, much to society's detriment.

When government excuses people for their behavior, or worse yet, pays them for acting irresponsibly, there is no incentive to do better. It doesn't help that government measures it's "success" by money distributed and number of "clients" rather than people turning their lives around.

I'm not saying this is going to be easy or an overnight solution. I am saying that it's the only way we know will work. And if we keep doing what we're doing, it's not going to get better.

Please explain to me where in the Constitution Congress gets the power to made them illegal.

It took an amendment to make alcohol illegal, and we all know how that ended up.

Cocaine and heroin used to be legal.

Where and when did we go from "We the People" to government playing parent badly?

Where and when did we go from assuming that most are innocent until proven guilty to what Congress thinks you should be allowed?

And so do a couple dozen others including alcohol, benzodiazepines, ketamine, opioids, amphetamines and some common antihistamines. And yes, cannabis.

Blaming the drug is a lot like blaming the gun.

As far as letting them destroy themselves, yes. As long as it doesn't happen on the public dime. Private charity can help if it wants, but government charity makes things worse.

If the dealers aren't shooting up the street and there's quality control, I don't care who makes the drugs. Any more than I care who makes the aspirin or topical antibiotic cream.

The default state is not supposed to be what government allows us to do.

And as government insists on proving to us again and again, government treatment doesn’t solve the addiction. Government treatment just incentivizes it.

What we’re doing is not working, and the more that government gets involved the less it does. The reason is not very hard to see. Part of government wants to punish the users, part of government wants to treat them, and the majority doesn’t care so long as the users are out of sight so citizens don’t complain.

I don’t want government as a parent. I think it does a lousy job. I think government keeps making excuses while doing everything it can to avoid making substantive changes. Yes, decriminalizing drugs will have a huge social impact. So did criminalizing them in the first place. So did making the “Drug War” a priority. That’s still the domestic stuff, we haven’t discusses the international implications.

Let me ask a question. If we don’t decriminalize drugs, will this mess ever end?

We've heard that before. Cocaine, cannabis, angel dust, crack cocaine, all were supposed to be uniquely dangerous.

But more to the point, if government prohibits something that “causes” medical damage or objectionable behavior, what is to stop them from prohibiting whatever whenever?

Right now there are Congresscritters making noises about banning guns and ammunition. Not to mention deplatforming people for having political views that don’t meet Congressional approval. Those Congresscritters will tell you in no uncertain terms that it’s For Your Own Good. It’s may not be entirely your fault, But You Can’t Be Allowed to choose for yourself.

Take away one bit of freedom today and you weaken every bit you can still clutch.

That’s an interesting argument. I can’t agree.

The question comes from where do you draw the line? Murder is an acceptable response for hooking someone on drugs, but not for bilking them out of their life savings? Giving them pills justifies manslaughter, but rape doesn’t?