Legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. would benefit the economy

Sorry about my citation fiasco. References for argument 2 are in the comments. Rebuttal 1: EmploymentYour argument hinges on the fact that all users under the legalization of marijuana would be abusers. This is not the case. You state that this is optimistic and deeply flawed, but allow me to elaborate. Do you assume that all alcohol users are alcoholics? Of course not. However, instead of looking at the situation theoretically, let's look at it expirementally, by drawing the comparision that we've both made from marijuana to alcohol. Alcohol abuse is on the rise, up more than 17% since 2005 [1]. So according to your conclusion drawn, we must have seen a decline in GDP from 2005 to now, alongside sharp increases in unemployment. However we have never seen such a decrease in GDP [2], and unemployment is currently resting at a healthy 5% [3]. So on an expiremental level, an increase in drug abuse (alcohol is a drug) did not cause any decrease in GDP or increase in unemployment. To also address the fact that 1 in 6 unemployed Americans are abusing alcohol or drugs. This is simply social darwinism, showing that people who abuse, will end up on the streets, and as I already covered, not all alcohol users are abusers, and you cannot make the assumption that marijuana will only be abused, because alcohol and marijuana are both very similar drugs.Rebuttal 1: HealthcareAssuming that I am in favor of regulation is correct.It is crucial to see that the "cost to society" is not a cost to the government or the economy in general. The amount that the government makes taxing alcohol is all profit. It can be clearly seen from the ajpm source that the White House page uses [4], that these losses are economic cost. But what is economic cost? The best example of economic cost is, let's say, a cafe chain allows all employees a free 10 dollar lunch on 6 to 8 hour shifts. There are 10,00 employees, all taking free 10 dollar lunches. The amount of money the business will lose giving their employees free lunches over a year per say is the economic cost. The business still turns a profit, and all is well and fine. There is nowhere in that scenario the government takes a loss, and neither is the alcohol scenario. The amount that is lost due to the use of alcohol is a loss society takes for having a legal drug, but the economy still remains sound. Businesses still turn huge profits despite the fact that they may lose a bit of money due to employees' alcohol abuse, same with marijuana. As I stated in my previous rebuttal, the economy still manages to grow despite increase of alcohol abuse, what's to say marijuana will cause an national economic decline? As I've clearly shown in Rebuttal 1, alcohol abuse has not caused economic decline. While business may have problems with more employees possibly not as productive, they will still generate enough to keep the economy growing at it's current rate, and the extra tax dollars the government receives will prove to trump the 'economic cost', as this cost is not a government loss.Contention 1: TaxesAs stated, these costs are not costs to the government. The government is still making an insane amount of tax money and has the ability to funnel it into other economic beneficiary programs.Contention 2: IncarcerationI have already proven that incarceration puts an incredible financial stress on the government. Making marijuana legal is an absolute solution to this issue. Your proposed plan is not. The thing about therapy, so many people who attend them suffer relapses [5]. People are expirementally increibly likely to turn back to whatever drug they abused, leading them back to being a strain on the system. Plus this therapy in itself would be very costly, so it's not an as effective solution.Contention 3: Crime / Corp.1 in 13 Americans abuse alcohol [6]. I don't know what programs you're thinking of that can make drugs less appealing to people, but whatever it is, it would be expensive, and most likely ineffective. People want their drugs.You fail to address the remainder (second paragraph) of my third argument, so I extend all arguments previously stated.1 - http://www.nbcnews.com...;2 - https://www.google.com...3 - http://www.bls.gov...4 - http://www.ajpmonline.org...(11)00538-1/fulltextNumber 4 isn't hyperlinking properly, so just go back to your white house page, the page is cited as xii.5 - http://americanaddictioncenters.org...6 - http://www.projectknow.com...;