My guess is we'd have to spend more defending the borders of all the "non-legal" states.
We don't with alcohol. It would get rid of the DEA. Now if only we could get rid of the ATF as well.
If, as you say, not every state would legalize, where's the benefits?
Do you need financial incentives to get rid of a bad law? Having the federal government involved is just bad law. A comparison could be made to Roe v. Wade which is also bad law. That power was never given to the federal government. Never mind if you agree or disagree with abortion a bad law is a bad law.
BTW, if medical costs rise in the states that legalize, do I have to continue to send them my federal tax dollars to subsidize their medical care?
Like you do for alcoholic treatment? That should also be a state issue and it is. Several states have reformed their Medicaid program because of cost.
Because we treat it with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge attitude. A "dry" county or city doesn't offer alcohol for sale -- but they look the other way if a citizen purchases it elsewhere and brings it in.
I seriously doubt the same attitude would be held towards those who bring in heroin or methamphetamine from another state.
But prior to Prohibition, interstate transportation of alcohol from "wet" states into "dry" states WAS a problem. So much so, Congress passed the Webb-Kenyon Act in 1913, a long-sought federal statute against transporting liquor into states that wished to block its entry.
"It would get rid of the DEA."
The DEA costs $11 billion per year out of a $2.3 trillion budget. Half of that money is spent on drug education, anti-drug advertising and treatment. The other half is spent on overseas drug interdiction and border patrol. Seems to me like money well spent, even if some drugs were made legal. In your example, if the states do not legalize heroin or cocaine, who's going to stop those drugs at the border if not the DEA? How would that work?
"Do you need financial incentives to get rid of a bad law?"
A bad law? You said the states could prohibit drugs if they wished. It's "bad law" if the feds do it, but "good law" if the states do it?
"Like you do for alcoholic treatment? That should also be a state issue and it is."
Here's my point. I do not want my federal tax dollars supporting the health care costs of a state that CHOOSES to legalize drugs. Let that state pay for the increased health care costs associated with additional accidents, violence, murders, addiction, care of drug babies, drug treatment, methadone clinics, free needles, etc.
And I want that part of the same legislation that legalizes drugs.