*sigh* Work with me here. If both alcohol and marijuana were illegal, the correct answer to the observation that legalizing alcohol would still leave illicit sales of marijuana would be, "yes, and?"
Legalizing only wine during Prohibition would not have had any effect on organized crime.
It most certainly would have... see below.
Similarly, legalizing only marijuana today would have no effect on the gangs.
Oh really? Denying them a major source of income would have "no effect?"
During Prohibition, anyone who wanted to consume alcohol had to turn to criminals... whether they wanted to consume beer, wine, or liquor. Were wine to be legalized under those circumstances, not only would the criminals lose the income of the wine-drinkers, but many of the beer and liquor drinkers would decide to substitute legal wine for expensive, illegal, and dangerous alternatives, further reducing their income. Would the criminals be as weakened with only wine legalized as opposed to the general legalization of alcohol? No. Similarly, legalizing marijuana only wouldn't weaken the gangs as much as general legalization of illicit drugs... but it would weaken them.
We were discussing the amount of time spent on enforcement, not the amount of money. Stay on topic.
Time is money, considering that we pay law enforcement officers for their time.
Sure. Because 99% of cigarettes sold don't have the confiscatory sales taxes of New York and New Jersey.
Oh, so you would be willing to bet that most cigarettes sold in NY/NJ are sold through illegal channels, then? Please say yes; I could use a new home theater.
If the legalization of marijuana doubled or tripled teen use, you'd still vote for it.
No, if the legalization of marijuana doubled or tripled teen use, I'd dispassionately and rationally weigh the costs of the policy against the benefits.
Tell me, robertpaulsen, do you believe it's accurate to describe America as a "free country?" If so, could you explain exactly what "free country" means to you?
It's my analogy so you can work with me. Legalizing one drug among the many drugs that are illegal would have no impact on the gangs. Just as legalizing wine would have had no effect on organized crime during Prohibition.
"but many of the beer and liquor drinkers would decide to substitute legal wine"
I seriously doubt that.
"Denying them a major source of income would have "no effect?"
Marijuana represents about 15% of all illegal drug revenue. Plus it's smelly, bulky, and difficult to smuggle. Gangs will simply focus on all the remainging illegal drugs, both hard and soft, to make up the difference.
I would imagine organized crime felt the same about wine.
"Oh, so you would be willing to bet that most cigarettes sold in NY/NJ are sold through illegal channels, then?"
More than 1%, that's for sure. What did the article say, a 50% drop in revenue? Plus buyers may also get the cigarettes from lower tax states, the internet, or from Indian stores.
My point is, legalizing marijuana and "taxing the hell out of it" may not produce the revenue expected.