If you're against drug legalization, this is like hearing "allowing people to steal whatever they want is causing less murder". Allowing everyone to do bad things, in order to slightly reduce the number of really bad things is not a basis for legalizing something.
Now I'm personally for the recreational legalization of all drugs in general, but this is a poor argument, just like increased tax revenue is a poor argument. Proponents of legalization should be arguing that anyone should be able to do whatever they want to their own body as long as they're not hurting anyone else.
I don't know. Seems if someone were on the fence for supporting Marijuana legalization, the fact that it also helps reduce opioid use seems to be a reason to support legalization. The picture you paint is of someone who is unlikely to support legalization, I find evidence based arguments (relative dangers of marijuiana vs alcohol/other drugs, potential benefits, incarceration rates, etc) to also be compelling.
>Proponents of legalization should be arguing that anyone should be able to do whatever they want to their own body as long as they're not hurting anyone else.
Sure. That's one possible argument. The evidence in this paper is another.
> If you're against drug legalization, this is like hearing "allowing people to steal whatever they want is causing less murder".
The problem with that analogy is that taking a drug is a victimless crime while stealing something is not. The quality of “bad things” is entirely different. Stealing means I am deprived of my property due to your actions. Smoking weed means I am offended by your actions, and I just happen to have a dumb law to cudgel you with.
The sentiment behind keeping most drugs illegal looks a lot more like racism or homophobia or bigotry in general than anything else.
What do opponents of marijuana legalization actually believe?
The only coherent opposition to it I've ever heard is that it's difficult to test for marijuana intoxication on the side of the road. Which still doesn't really make sense when you consider that people are clearly doing it anyway (and now can easily cross state lines with no marijuana in their possession but quite a bit of THC in their blood).
They believe that it is a bad thing that bad people do. And that because they're bad people they deserve bad things to happen. Because drugs are bad, m'kay?
Seriously, I can only guess because none of it makes sense to begin with.
Firstly, there have been multiple studies linking cannabis use to schizophrenia, and opponents like to point to them.
But most of these studies are of poor quality (e.g. small sample size, short duration, poorly controlled for confounding factors), or/and have skullduggerous sources of funding.
Secondly, decades of anti-drug propaganda have much of the population convinced that all drugs (except of course alcohol, caffeine and nicotine) are essentially evil, and that cannabis in particular is a "gateway drug" to things like heroin (personally I find this to be ludicrous, but it's been said enough times by tabloids, politicians and schools that enough people believe it).
This second one is deeply entrenched, and it will take much time to change opinions.
Proponents of legalisation should use any argument that is likely to persuade, as long as it’s honest. For a person who believes that drug use is inherently bad, “anyone should be able to do whatever they want to their own body” isn’t an argument. It’s just the opposite of their opinion.
Now I'm personally for the recreational legalization of all drugs in general, but this is a poor argument, just like increased tax revenue is a poor argument. Proponents of legalization should be arguing that anyone should be able to do whatever they want to their own body as long as they're not hurting anyone else.