When alcohol was re-legalized, the percentage of consumers shot up, and abuse of the substance increased. The abuse magnified dysfunction within the family structure causing greater erosion of families. So while legalization may have stopped one contributor of violence, it opened the door to another. Regular citizens who become dependent upon alcohol, and abuse it to a destructive point. Destructive not only to themselves but others around them. That contributor has taken a far greater toll on our society by creating more people who require assistance. Battered wives need assistance to escape husbands. Abused children grow up to be adults with whom we might fear depending upon the level of physical or mental abuse they endured. I'm sure other examples could be summoned up as well to expand that list
There are always trade-offs, and often times we are unable to identify the negative aspects are until we make a decision and time passes. Perhaps it will take enough time for you to have a more enjoyable life, and the negative results will not be exposed and impacting society until your children are adults or maybe even your grandchildren. Just as the decision to attack drug usage via the WOD proved to be bad, I think we, or our surviving relatives, will learn over time that allowing unfettered access to drugs will be as bad if not worse.
Everything really depends upon whether the drug usage and abuse grows significantly, as it did with alcohol, or stays the same or declines. Initially we won't notice the long term affects. If it declines, then it will be a big success, however, I honestly doubt that is what will happen. Portugal has been experimenting with decriminalization that so far appears to be positive but will it continue to be a reality or just an illusion. Time will tell.
With regards to your statement: We have chosen through our elected representatives to pick up that check - we should reverse that poor choice, not use it as an excuse for further restrictions of freedom.
You make it sound as if that is easy to obtain, and once obtained many problems will be eliminated. Well, I certainly do my part as I am sure you do as well, however, neither you nor I can control the others who thwart our attempts. If they would listen to only you or I then we would be successful. If they even listened to the majority, we might be successful. I helped to oust Mary Landrieu but I know getting rid of just her is not the solution. It helps, but only by a small degree. Collectively we even got the Senate to go Republican majority. So far we haven't noticed any real change, or arguably any change at all. Hopefully we will in time, and the shorter the better. But I won't hold my breath waiting for it.
Let me end by saying that my reason for starting this discussion, was not to promote one idea over another. Rather it was to say that decisions have consequences. The majority of people thought the WOD was the correct approach at the time it was started. Time has shown it to not only be ineffective, but costly even beyond the financial aspect. What should be the replacement? What can we see as the negatives that might arise, especially in the long-term. Will next decision create an even worse problem? This is not something to be taken so lightly as we may be making it even worse. In other words it was purely for discussion purposes only.
That hasn't happened with alcohol, which proves that it's not inevitable.
When alcohol was re-legalized, the percentage of consumers shot up, and abuse of the substance increased.
Not so: "alcohol consumption [...] did not increase substantially immediately following the repeal of Prohibition." - Alcohol Consumption During Prohibition, Jeffrey A. Miron; Jeffrey Zwiebel, The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 2, (May, 1991), pp. 242-247
And from 1980 to 1995, alcohol consumption dropped by 23% while remaining legal.
Just as the decision to attack drug usage via the WOD proved to be bad, I think we, or our surviving relatives, will learn over time that allowing unfettered access to drugs will be as bad if not worse.
Framing the discussion entirely in terms of "negative effects" pushes off the table the question that conservatives must ask: what is the proper authority of government to address those effects?
With regards to your statement: We have chosen through our elected representatives to pick up that check - we should reverse that poor choice, not use it as an excuse for further restrictions of freedom.
You make it sound as if that is easy to obtain
Not at all - but it's the conservative approach.