No more money wasted on police trying to stop it. No sales to minors (at least, no more than cigarettes and alcohol have now). Taxes on income by drugs dealers (Colorado is showing a hell of a windfall). Reliability and safety in quality, so that you get exactly what you expect.
We might even get there soon.
I don't think the country, as a whole, will, but I do believe the more liberal areas will get there much quicker (as we're already seeing).
I live in Indiana, the only state where one cannot buy alcohol on a Sunday. I don't think marijuana is gonna be legal here anytime in the near future.
The best thing that will come out of all of this, imho, is that people will stop looking at marijuana and methamphetamine like they're the same thing. We might actually get sane drug policies, and we might end up getting people who need help (drug addicts) the help that they need, instead of just locking them in prison.
The Netherlands have been showing it to the world for the last 30 or 40 years.
This raises an interesting point: it is very useful to have a diversity of government because then one can see the effects of a variety of different legal and governmental structures and learn from them.
Except for stubborn stupidity. Diversity in how heath care is delivered worldwide, for instance, has delivered plenty of examples to learn from. Yet the US quite intentionally refused to learn from it when redesigning our health care system -- suggesting that a plan had learned from the experience of other countries was a sure way to kill it. I don't have any idea what to do about this sort of jingoism.
Federalism at work. :)
I'll allow that it's been 14 years since I lived in the area, but NC and TN still had dry counties where you couldn't buy liquor at all, let alone Sundays.
Born and raised in Indiana, where you could buy hard liquor in one of two places: the liquor store (duh) and the drug store. I'd love to know the origin of _that_ law.
"What about the grocery." "Nah, too accessible." "Drug store?" "Well, ya know, alcohol has been known to be used for medicinal purposes. And Osco Drugs just dropped twenty grand in my campaign fund, so why not?"
Warm beer? Buy it in a ton of places. Oh, you wanted it pre-chilled? Liquor store only.
Not to derail the conversation, but my point being that if 80 years after the end of prohibition we still have whacky liquor laws like IN does, some places just aren't going to get to enjoy a nice bowl of Purple Kush anytime soon.
Meanwhile, here in WA, I feel majorly inconvenienced because Winterlife Coop won't deliver to the Eastside.
During prohibition, it was still possible to get alcohol with a doctor's prescription (does that sound familiar?). So pharmacies started carrying whiskey and such to fill those prescriptions. Once prohibition ended, they just started selling it over-the-counter.
For pot, sure.
For cocaine? I seriously doubt it.
She was also a methamphetamine user (as a bipolar person she used meth when she was depressed and heroin when she was manic) and suffered no such "meth mouth" complications. The generally accepted reason for that side effect is a failure of dental hygiene and chronic dry mouth when dosed improperly, not necessarily the drug itself. If that were the case, the thousands and thousands of people prescribed Adderall would be toothless.
The major problem with the illegal "hard drug" market is that these substances are synthesized in abhorrent conditions and it is impossible to know what you are getting and in what concentration. For instance, there has been a recent rash of heroin overdoses across the country due to it having been "enhanced" with Fentanyl, an anesthetic designed for exclusive use in a closely-monitored hospital setting.
It took her death for me to change my stance on all of this. She found drugs that made her feel better. Heroin, meth, MDMA, etc. are no different than Seroquel, Xanax, Prozac, or any of those psychoactive drugs.
Methamphetamine is also fairly safe (mainly psychosis and heart issues right?). Teeth falling out is more of a result of people tweaking for days without taking care of themselves. After all, methamphetamine is a Schedule II, prescribed, commercial medication.
Here's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#Neurotoxicity
If law enforcement cannot stop drug sale en masse, how do you propose that sale to minors will be prevented? The analogy with cigarettes and alcohol is not very apt: a lot of chain stores sell these (although some are pulling out: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2014/02/05/cvs-to-...). It's clear that such outlets will not be open to drugs like heroin or MDMA.
Plus, most people do not feel like they are doing something wrong using/selling little pot. It is just illegal, not "bad". It might be different with selling to minors.
There's no profit in selling alcohol to kids. Not only does the law come down on you if you get caught, but they can't provide enough demand to make it worth the risk. Plus, a chunk of your clientele will get antsy about it.
Illegal stuff, on the other hand, already has fully-operational structure measuring risk versus reward. The law is going to come down equally hard, so there's no increased risk, just more customers. Plus, the clients who find out are already incentivized to keep quiet.
tl;dr, prohibiting something to a minority is ridiculously more effective than prohibiting something to a larger group.
Morgan Spurlock had a good episode about them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gx4-wS1nrM#t=337
I'm sure the one they highlighted is among the more professional, but looking at how it's run and the stakes involved I'd imagine it's no more possible for a minor to make a purchase there than at a state liquor store.
Therefore, your market would partition into two groups: illegal and legal dealers (who would follow the law to the letter, like most businesses). The first group would also be extremely tiny - unless the state's taxes are higher than the risk premium illegal dealers are charging, which is unlikely.
We don't limit alcohol to minors terribly effectively, but we're very good at nearly universally collecting excise tax revenue.
States can aggressively police liquor licenses and enforce regulations with respect to sales to minors and get better compliance there. In my state, they clamp down regulation of kegs and made the traditional keg party much harder to execute on than it was in the past.
Nevertheless, a few groups have popped up that are willing to sell cannabis to you (buying from them is legal, selling to you is illegal, only one party in the transaction is at risk). These groups are hyper-vigilant about only selling to people who can legally purchase from them (are over 21). They do this because the officials have publicly stated that their policy is to tolerate this, as long as they are operating within the general spirit of the legalization laws.
Bars rarely card me anymore. These guys? Every single time.