Drug Legalization

== Rebuttal == (1) First, I don't support the "War on Drugs." So that's irrelevant. Second, so-called "sin taxes" are unsustainable. Evidence shows that "sin taxes" could not be maintained in the face of the highly organized tobacco and alcohol industries. [1] Third, Pro ignores the costs of legalization, including increased health costs, social costs, regulatory costs, and treatment costs (more drug users means increased rehab costs). In Colorado, for example, tax revenue for marijuana has fallen short, "leaving Colorado short of the funds it had anticipated collecting for enforcement." [2] (2) We need to be careful about making bold assertions about how reforms will impact crime rates. For instance, data shows significant crime spikes in key marijuana reform jurisdictions, suggesting a causal link between marijuana reform and increases in crime. [3] Even if only a correlation, this data is disconcerting (and helps explain why marijuana reform advocates aren't saying that reform contributes to a decrease in crime). (3) Legalization is worse for disadvantaged groups. First, my proposals would also reduce incarceration rates, while increasing early intervention, treatment, and recovery. That benefit is non-unique. Second, Pro fails to realize that legal drug industries target the poor and disenfranchised. In Colorado, for example, a "disproportionate share" of marijuana businesses are located in lower-income and minority communities, communities that suffer disparate impacts of drug use. [4] Similarly, studies show that lower-income and minority neighborhoods are eight times more likely to have carry-out liquor stores than white or racially integrated neighborhoods. [5] (4) James Wilson said it best: "tobacco shorten's one's life, cocaine debases it." [6] Not all drugs are the same. Some drugs should remain illegal because they destroy lives with greater magnitude and more certainty than other drugs, including harm to drug users' intimates (family, neighbors), bystanders, and taxpayers at large. == My Case == Certain drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth) should remain illegal because legalization will open the floodgates to massively increased use and the harms that attend it. Those harms include public health, public safety, social functioning, and criminal justice concerns. Tellingly, Pro offers no evidence that drug use won't increase. Pro admits there will be "drastic decreases in drug prices following legalization." Economists estimate price drops ranging from 80% to 95%. [1] Drugs will also be easier to obtain. And they will be widely commercialized (think Big Tobacco). This suggests that there will be a massive increase in the use of drugs following legalization. The example of marijuana in Colorado proves the point: Colorado is now #1 in the country for marijuana use among both children and adults. [7] [8] Nothing in Pro's case suggests that the potential benefits of legalization will outweigh the potential harms from increased drug use. The full impact of legalization is simply unknown. Pro's case is entirely theoretical. Evidence on the costs of current drug laws tells us little about what life would be like in their absence. We need a counterfactual. But Pro offers none. And without that sort of evidence, it's impossible to say we should legalize all recreational drugs. Rather than radical change, then, we should aim to make prohibition work better with incremental reforms. Legalizing marijuana, MDMA, and LSD is on the horizon. But cocaine, heroin, and meth should remain illegal. Meanwhile, we should incorporate more harm reduction policies (e.g. needle exchange programs, less incarceration of low-level offenders, more treatment, more targeted deterrence). Because Pro has both the burden of persuasion and the burden of proof to show that outright legalization is preferable to incremental reforms, and because Pro has failed to offer any non-theoretical, non-speculative evidence, vote Con. Sources in comments.