In reverse order.
2. Repeal federal drug laws and turn the issue of legalization over to the states where it belongs.
A viable alternative. Thanks. There is strong arugment for substance control policy being a states rights issue. Although, I don't agree with it, I respect such reasonable and sensible logic.
1. The prohibition of alcohol, a substance arguably more problematic than illicit drugs, was a miserable failure.
Some people view alcohol prohibition as a failure. That's one school of thought. From what I've read over the years, prohibition dramatically cut alcohol use. Several individuals have written that alcohol consumption, was literally cut in half under prohibition. That would make alcohol prohibition a success. Suffice it to say, American's eventually became opposed to alcohol prohibition and it was overturned.
In addition, I view all illicit drugs, including marijuana, to be more highly problematic to our society, then alcohol will ever be. Many people can consume a few alcoholic drinks and not be intoxicated. The same can not be said for using heroin, cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, designer drugs and on and on and on. Think about it. Smoke a joint, shoot up heroin, snort some cocaine, pop a pill and you're high! Period. Most people don't get stoned from a few drinks. That may be a generalization to some, but its one, that makes complete sense.
Then there are the effects that legalizing, illicit drugs, would have on the children of America. That's an issue we should all take very seriously.
You should ask yourself why you don't want to grasp that nettle.
The worst thing about marijuana is that, like tobacco or other "legal" smokable herbs, consumption past a certain level can significantly worsen one's cancer risk. (On the other hand, a typical marijuana user's usage levels are lower than the tobacco usage of a typical smoker.)
I have never had any marijuana and if its Federal ban were ever repealed, I would probably still never have any. I think smoking, especially, is icky and would only try it as a desperate "medicinal" measure where no other way of administration were possible. But I don't run from it crying "wolf! wolf!"
Prohibition also created a huge black market demand for alcohol and directly led to a new era in organized crime. In my opinion that would make alcohol prohibition a failure.
"There is strong arugment for substance control policy being a states rights issue. Although, I don't agree with it, I respect such reasonable and sensible logic."
Why shouldn't legalization be a states' rights issue? A whole host of other criminal justice issues are left to the states so why not this one? The only constitutional argument that can possibly be made for any federal drug law is under the purview of foreign commerce. Under the Constitution, the federal government has every right to regulate the importation of drugs from foreign countries. However, a marijuana plant grown in the backyard would strictly be a state issue.
Let's be careful with using the "It's for the children" argument popularized by the left. If we really wanted to protect the children we would push for a ban on fatty foods, require everyone to wear non-flammable padded clothing, and set a national speed limit of 10 mph. Think of all the lives that could be saved! Of course, that would never fly. An abuse of constitutional boundaries is an abuse of constitutional boundaries, whether we are talking about drugs, food, clothing or speed limits.
Only if you also ignore the lawlessness (e.g. Al Capone corrupting police and politicians, and murdering people) created by Prohibition.
And in any case, the War on Some Drugs is NOT like alcohol Prohibition...because no Constitutional amendment has been passed to prohibit any drugs, like was done for alcohol. So the War on Some Drugs is completely in violation of The Law.
That little, eh. Some "success." Oh, and what about what KIND of alcohol was consumed during that era. Few people bothered with wine and even fewer with beer. Hard liquor was the tipple of choice; it packed the biggest punch in the smallest package. Today it's pretty much the opposite.