Drugs were illegal in 1979, but enforcement was absurdly lax.
Tobacco use has declined significantly from then, with only a public health campaign and price increases to push it down.
I don't think anyone is advocating simply abolishing the prohibition on drugs. Folks are advocating changing the way we deal with them to the way we deal with tobacco and alcohol use: as a public health problem.
Increased use is a downside of such a policy, but there are lots of upsides:
1. removal of cash-flow to the 'black economy', including indirectly to terrorist groups,
2. the ability to tax trade in drugs, as we do trade in tobacco and alcohol,
3. legally enforcable quality control, and the consequent elimination or virtual elimination of user deaths due to overdose (mostly due to quality fluctuation) or toxins in the supply (cf. recent cases in the Philadelphia/Camden area), supposedly one of the notable harms of drug abuse, but really a consequence of the product being illegal,
4. savings on incarceration (no, they won't all go into gun-running, or other crimes--the money isn't there) and enforcement, even more than is needed to fund increased treatment and anti-drug public health campaigns,
5. decrease in crime to support habits: even with the posited increase in use, and taxes included in the price, removal of the premium charged for illegal trade would drop the price, making it easier for users to support habits without resort to crime, also use would no longer automatically associate the user with criminal elements, nor already place him or her on the wrong side of the law so that psychological resistance to further law-breaking is lessened,
6. improved access to treatment for addicts who want to quit--rightly or wrongly addicts fear to seek treatment for fear of arrest.
It should be pointed out that before drug prohibition, some notable, quite productive individuals were given to the use of 'recreational' drugs (Arthur Conan Doyle and Hector Berlioz come to mind), so the idea that all the 'new users' will ruin their lives is also false.
Some want the federal government to butt out and let each state decide the issue. Some wish to legalize only marijuana -- some only medical marijuana. Some wish to decriminalize only marijuana. Some wish to legalize all "soft" drugs. Some wish to legalize all drugs.
Sometimes it's hard to pin people down on their true position. For example, you appear to desire some sensible approach to the drug issue. You list the benefits to be gained.
But in order for those things you mention to happen, we'd have to legalize and regulate all drugs (as we do with alcohol and tobacco), including hard drugs and prescription drugs. Even then there'd be a problem with underage use (eg., currently, 30% of marijuana user are underage -- my guess is that percentage would increase with legalization -- and we'd still have to deal with that problem).
Yes, we would remove cash-flow to the 'black economy' -- probably the largest benefit of legalization. Would the gangs and dealers go away? After alcohol Prohibition, they simply went into the drug business -- where would they go this time?
I say it's very possible that they would go into the drug export business. The pipelines exist -- all they'd have to do is reverse the flow. The United States would be a drug lord's Mecca, attracting them like flies to grow, manufacture, then export our legal drugs to countries where their use remains illegal.
Unless, of course, your scenario includes world-wide legalization of all drugs. Would that happen?
The gangs will also hang around to sell drugs to minors, to sell any drug not readily available under your plan (eg., if heroin is available only under doctors orders or only to registered users), and to sell tax-free drugs if the taxes get too high (as they're doing now with cigarettes).
But, you are correct, the bulk of their money and profits would be eliminated.
"the ability to tax trade in drugs, as we do trade in tobacco and alcohol"
Certainly if the plan is to have companies manufacture these recreational drugs ("Houston Heroin -- Real Flower Power") and distribute them though retail outlets, taxes can be imposed and collected. I'm sure your drug program would be sold to the American public emphasizing this aspect (Remember the State Lottery? Proceeds to the public schools? Cigarette taxes to fund anti-smoking programs and health costs? "Sin" taxes on alcohol? Yeah, stick 'em good, the heathens. Let them pay through the nose.)
Taxes will be collected at every level: federal, state, county, city, and local. Every level of government will want a piece of the action. It's for the children, doncha know. And who's going to complain? A better question -- who cares if they complain?
Drug prices should go down. But will they? Drug users have already demonstrated that they're willing to pay a gazillion dollars an ounce for their recreation. The drug manufacturer will want to charge enough to cover potential future liability (like tobacco, I can imagine a creative lawyer going after a marijuana manufacturer). Add profit taking along the way and taxes and we could be very close to where we are today.
An example. In California, medical marijuana is legal. Go to the doctor, get a "recommendation" because your back hurts or you have a toothache, and get your Acapulco Gold at a co-op. All legal. What would you expect to pay for your marijuana? How about $480. an ounce? And that's tax-free! Geez Louise, it's cheaper on the street!
And that's assuming the taxes are collected. Under your plan, will people be allowed to manufacture their own methamphetamine? Crack cocaine? Grow their own marijuana? How will we collect taxes on all those people? I suppose we could eliminate the DEA and move those people over to the federal BATF. Will they collect state and local taxes too? Looks to me like the feds will still be poking around in our business, huh?
"legally enforcable quality control"
True. Assuming the addict can get the quality and quantity of his drug at a cheaper price than what he'd get on the street, and that he doesn't have to jump through regulation hoops or publicize his name, yeah, that is certainly a plus. If he does OD, though, I assume we'll be there with free health care to take care of him? I'd sleep better knowing that.
"savings on incarceration"
I sincerely doubt that, though, on the surface it would seem that we would.
Right now, 20-25% of those in prison are there on drug related charges -- mostly drug dealing and trafficking. But the drug legalization argument is that these are non-violent offenders and they should be let go to make room for the real criminals. Right? Well, where's the savings? It costs the same amount to lock up a rapist as it does a drug dealer.
Unless you really believe that, with drug legalization, we will close 20-25% of prisons, fire 20-25% of prison guards, shut down some courtrooms, fire some judges and prosecutors, etc. That could happen, I suppose.
"decrease in crime to support habits"
If the price drops, yes, that's possible. A drug user with no money and no income is still going to prostitute or steal to get the money they need. If it's less money they need, perhaps they'll commit less crime. Maybe they'll commit the same amount of crime and do more drugs. I honestly don't know. But the theory sounds good.
"improved access to treatment for addicts who want to quit--rightly or wrongly addicts fear to seek treatment for fear of arrest."
NA stands for Narcotics Anonymous, a free anonymous program that works for those who want to quit. They're in the telephone book in every city. I have yet to hear or read any story ever where the cops hung around outside of an NA meeting hoping to arrest a drug user. (Though I have heard of cops hanging around outside of bars hoping to arrest a DUI. That's mean.)
But, if a person really didn't want to quit their drug use (and who does?), that is a great excuse.
"so the idea that all the 'new users' will ruin their lives is also false"
Hey, go for it. We can always use another Arthur Conan Doyle or Hector Berlioz. Or another Barry Bonds or a Steve Howe. We'll see how many we'll get.
I appreciate your well thought out post. I don't mean my response to be negative or a put-down, I just wanted to point out the other side of the argument.