Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably.
Legalization proponents claim, absurdly, that making illegal drugs legal would not cause more of these substances to be consumed, nor would addiction increase. They claim that many people can use drugs in moderation and that many would choose not to use drugs, just as many abstain from alcohol and tobacco now. Yet how much misery can already be attributed to alcoholism and smoking? Is the answer to just add more misery and addiction?
It's clear from history that periods of lax controls are accompanied by more drug abuse and that periods of tight controls are accompanied by less drug abuse.
In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor's care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. During the 19th Century, morphine was legally refined from opium and hailed as a miracle drug. Many soldiers on both sides of the Civil War who were given morphine for their wounds became addicted to it, and this increased level of addiction continued throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor's care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. That is twice as many per capita as there are today.
By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict. [end excerpt]
______________________________
Let us calculate. In 1880, when drugs were legal, there were 400,000 people addicted to opium. US population was 50,000,000 in 1880, so the addiction rate was 1.25%. By 1900, the addiction rate to either opium or cocaine was 0.5%. So, even when the cocaine addicts were added to the totals for 1900, the addiction rate still FELL by at least 60%.
Fast forward to 2000:
"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992."
--www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm
"The demand for both powdered and crack cocaine in the United States is high. Among those using cocaine in the United States during 2000, 3.6 million were hardcore users who spent more than $36 billion on the drug in that year."
--http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/cocaine.htm
Adding the two together, it works out to about 4.5 mllion hardcore users. Using a population figure of 290,000,000, you get a rate (1.5%) that is triple what it was when prohibition was just getting started.
To summarize for those in Rio Linda, addiction rates fell by at least 60% for the 20 years from 1880 to 1900. Then it tripled from 1900-2000 during prohibition.
The correct headline should be:
In the abscence of prohibition, addiction plunged from 1880 to 1900, then addiction tripled over the next 100 years under prohibition.
People who spout the "Legalization fails" shibboleth always leave out their first premise - That the only acceptable result of drug policy is zero use. So even if only one person uses, legalization would be considered a "failure".
The US government didn't even know how many people it had, to say nothing of how many were addicted to what.
The CENSUS was a failure so they threw it away without counting it.
This is one of the reasons we had to invent computers.