Well, I’m making progress. You’re at least thinking a bit more critically about this.
The usage statistics indicate that the *likely* minimum age being placed at 21 or older would still leave a significant black market. It would be extraordinarily difficult to quantify either the decrease in illegal sellers or the increase in legal regulation. Aside from the fact that this is comparing apples to oranges, without a specific policy to critique there are far too many unknowns. I do not see any situation where the decrease in bureaucracy resulting from a potential reduction in the pursuit of criminal suppliers would be greater than the increase in bureaucracy resulting from the regulation of legal sellers, the taxation of legal sellers, the regulatory and mandatory impacts on health insurance from these legal substances, the expansion of state and local police to determine “safe” limits for the use of currently illicit drugs, the determination and enforcement of restrictions on such usage based on their mind-altering characteristics, and so on.
Obviously, a black market is smaller when the subject in question is legalized wholly or in part. That would very likely be offset, however, by substantial problems elsewhere.
ROTFL! I'm saying what I've said all along - it must be your reading skills that are progressing.
The usage statistics indicate that the *likely* minimum age being placed at 21 or older would still leave a significant black market. It would be extraordinarily difficult to quantify either the decrease in illegal sellers or the increase in legal regulation. Aside from the fact that this is comparing apples to oranges, without a specific policy to critique there are far too many unknowns.
"Far too many unknowns" - yet you don't hesitate to draw a conclusion. Is that an example of what you regard as critical thinking?
I do not see any situation where the decrease in bureaucracy resulting from a potential reduction in the pursuit of criminal suppliers would be greater than the increase in bureaucracy resulting from the regulation of legal sellers, the taxation of legal sellers, the regulatory and mandatory impacts on health insurance from these legal substances, the expansion of state and local police to determine “safe” limits for the use of currently illicit drugs, the determination and enforcement of restrictions on such usage based on their mind-altering characteristics, and so on.
The fact that you can find a way to use more words to describe the increase than you use to describe the decrease proves squat about their relative magnitudes.
Obviously, a black market is smaller when the subject in question is legalized wholly or in part. That would very likely be offset, however, by substantial problems elsewhere.
Why should anyone think it likely that the offset would be complete (or more)?