Drug dealers would go out of business overnight if drugs where legalized. The only possible exception would be if drugs where taxed to over 500% of their market price.
I figure that, in the absence of prohibition, a heavy sin tax would sustain the black market for a long time. The religious folks or just plain moralists will have their say, somehow avoiding endorsement of drug use and happily accepting a revenue opportunity.
I really doubt that drug use would become endemic to the same level as alcohol. For example, Christians don't pass around a joint as part of Communion. Like me, some ask for juice or just pass on the wine.
Part of drug enforcement is avoiding endorsement of loser behavior. To me the really debatble issue is mostly the grouping of addictive and nonaddictive, harmful and essentially benign substances. Those loser types, free to abuse themselves, just become tax burdens, contributing nothing to society. It's not so much infringement of rights traceable to specific individuals as it is the grander voice of society as a whole.
A tax is a more realistic disincentive than futile criminalizing of use. Yet I am reminded of my sister the social worker commenting that her clients' first priority with their assistance checks is buying cigarettes at $40 a carton. She tries to keep them supplied with discount coupons. In my State, a bright leaf tobacco grower state, cigs cost $20 a carton, yet as a state is as red as they come. Sounds like hypocrisy, right?
Responding to the issue of Rabbi not providing a straight answer, he is tedious about making statements one is prepared to back up. Perhaps he is abiding by his own standard when saying "probably".
The government, by legal procedure invoked by elected representatives, seems to have the power to do as it sees fit. The issue is the integrity of the procedure. For example, a Constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment is not impossible and would not necessarily be an abuse of the law. We have RKBA because the government (Constitution) says we do, and the Feds, States, and Courts have not completely fabricated why we don't. My sense of entitlement has little to do with it in practical terms until they ask for my guns.
In my opinion, a consensus of what the right thing to do might be determines what laws are passed, so it is extremely important that our government not be dominated by headstrong religious or for-the-children people who aren't particularly concerned about representing everyone or respecting diversity. Controlling behavior and tax burdens is more important to them than anyone's claim to rights. All we are talking about here is when that effort becomes futile or is misdirected. Of course you can trade a right wing government for a liberal one and simply get different reasons for wanting to control and to nullify rights, real or perceived. Mention of freedom and liberty is too often just hollow rhetoric. Everything is conditional it would seem.
