I expect your assertion about police is somewhat tongue in cheek but it's time I responded in this thread in any case. In relation to police corruption, I see that as a big loss to the social system and to the police profession as well. The taint from corruption diminishes the integrity of the force, overwhelming any financial gains made by corrupt individuals imo.
As for lawyers, drug related legal proceedings have expanded the court system but not in a particularly lucrative way for the majority of practitioners. As an outsider, I get the impression of lots of pro bono/legal aid work involved in defending those caught up in the war on drugs. I guess the big players are well defended so their lawyers would be winners. I see a picture somewhat similar to drug related police corruption. Most of the legal profession gaining little if at all and probably suffering opportunity cost to boot, a few on big retainers but probably not particularly comfortable in the professional sense. I wonder how many senior counsels put "Drug Lord defender" on their CVs.
Back to the pamphlet that seems to have inspired this thread. I haven't read it but I have read through the posts. Thanks for the kind words, especially the back handed ones from those whose perspective is usually quite different from mine.
My qualification here is as a parent and in recent months as a grandparent. My professional expertise gives me zero qualification as a social commentator but I guess we are all participants in society and entitled to our views. I think we all probably respond to drugs in different ways. From the very little I've read, marijuana triggers adverse psychological effects in susceptible individuals and they would be foolish to take it. Unfortunately though "foolish" is probably an apt descriptor for many illicit drug takers. Writing advice on a pamphlet may not make much difference to a self destructive adolescent. I think all drugs have their counter indications, all the more reason to have some kind of supervised use rather than the pretence we have now.
Over the longer term I like to think our society could evolve a greater tolerance to substance abuse while discouraging use at the same time. The way we currently deal with tobacco is an example. Tobacco use is gradually becoming less and less socially acceptable since advertising has been restricted and public awareness campaigns have highlighted to dangers. How far have we come since "Daytime or nighttime, its always the right time ...."?
Properly handled, decriminalisation and legalisation need not open any floodgates. I don't see a flood of legal kava for example. Legally available but restricted, kava seems an unpleasant, noxious substance to me and the fact I can obtain it legally, doesn't tempt me at all. More importantly, I don't see its use spreading just because it can be legally obtained. I see its use as a problem in the social sense, but a contained problem. Similarly I expect that if heroin were legally obtainable and used under strict conditions, we would not see an explosion in its use. Instead we just might see declining use if potential users had to prove awareness of that particular substances truly obnoxious side effects.
Abandoning the war on drugs would mean that every substance would need its own strategy aimed at minimising harm and restricting access and use, just as we do with tobacco right now.
I expect it would be much cheaper than the horrendous expense we currently suffer. I expect too that we could plan for declining use as well if potential users were under obligation to recognise the dangers of their abusive substance of choice.
