Prohibition kills effective regulation. Do you see illegal liquor stores on the block where the meth labs are? No, because licensed establishments can be told where to locate. Do you see crime waves carried out by drunks who need a fix? No, because they can obtain their drug legally, and have a disincentive to break the law. Meth addicts are already criminals by virtue of their addiction, so that line is already crossed.
Prohibition also makes rehabilitation more difficult if not impossible, first by making addicts afraid to seek treatment for fear of getting busted, and then by sucking up all the available funding for law enforcement, leaving none for rehab.
The kids you know who are addicts -- obviously, the threat of prison hasn't kept them from becoming addicts. Would imprisonment help them kick? Maybe, but it usually doesn't. If the goal is to prevent addiction, it certainly would help to devote resources to -- wait for it -- helping addicts, rather than devoting unlimited resources to punishing them and treating rehab as an afterthought.
I would disagree with this. Prohibition does work. But it has to be enforced at all levels of a society, or it will not. Societal forces that allow for the sub-culture to form and exist must also be controlled, or the behavior will be continued.
"No-fault" divorce and single parent homes are two of those societal forces. Children raised without guidance from both parents in a stable home are almost guaranteed to enter the party scene, and continue the same behavior which caused their parents predictable failures.
Especially harmful is the absence of the male role model - Where the woman yields, is nurture, loving and giving, it is the man who is generally unyielding - He is law and justice, demanding responsibility and discipline.
Our education system teaches narcissism, and the popular culture backs it up. "Do your own thing" is not liberty. It is libertine. Until society returns to some semblance of right and wrong, nothing will truly change.
But, now I am arguing your case, aren't I? Not really. Prior to the 60's drugs were all illegal at the state level to some degree. and the popular culture was against them, as were societal and familial norms. The prohibition against drugs worked pretty well.
To legalize drugs is to finally lose the last leg of that fight to liberalization. That cannot be good. What needs to occur is strengthening of the other legs. As I said upthread, I agree that the fed has overstepped it's bounds, and that states rights and personal rights have been lost. Those must be restored. But there must be a uniform means of addressing the issue in order to be effective.
And foremost among them, before anyone says ANY effort has been made, close that damnable border. Seal it off. That is definitely within Federal jurisdiction, and is way cheaper and more effective than any other thing they might endeavor to do. Until that is done properly, and with great vigor, don't even tell me that they have tried and lost.