As for that “larger constituency that regards criminalization as an intolerable imposition on one of their preferences”, I think it already exists. When half of our yearly drug arrests are for marijuana, and most of those are for only possession, the numbers will add up to at least 6,000,000 arrests for marijuana possession this decade. In fact, in every year since 2003 more people have been arrested for marijuana possession than for violent crimes. If that’s not “enough people directly inconvenienced or hassled by the criminalization of the drug to make politicians pay any price for supporting the status quo”, then I’d like to know what number of people would be enough?

The other three options are we could empower the government to distribute the drugs, we could empower businesses to sell the drugs or, the approach I favor, is we could empower non-profit agencies specifically set up for drug manufacturing/distribution with all resulting “profits” being poured back into rehabilitation programs and drug education programs.

As a conservative I don’t want to empower criminals, nor do I want to empower our government. And because drugs are different than apples or candy or cars I think we should treat them differently than other products. Removing the profit from drug sales is the least bad option.

As a bonus we won’t fund terrorist, narco-terrorits, drug cartels, gangs, police corruption, etc. It’s time to have a serious debate and get past the legalize, decriminalize debate.

…there are relatively few people who would use the drug once legalized who do not already use

I would point out, as an individual who became a very regular pot smoker in adulthood, that it’s not the health effects that often prevent people from using the (honestly) wonderful drug, it’s the pain and hassle of scoring.

Legalization would make it much easier (and safer) to obtain the drug. Since, as all us stoners know, it’s access that limits smoking, not price, there are likely to be a lot of new users who aren’t even considering it now, because they don’t know how to get it.

That’s probably a good description of the current political situation. And if pot’s just decrminalized I agree that there might not be much of an increase in use. But if it’s full-on legalized I could see marijuana cultivation and retailing turning into a gigantic Madison Avenue-backed industry. In that scenario I’d imagine pot use would increase significantly. It’s a big cash crop in several states as it is; I’d imagine that a legal pot industry might wield a lot of political and economic clout in certain parts of the country.

This is because this kind of argument unintentionally reproduces the stigma against the drug and effectively endorses one of the key claims that supporters of criminalization make.

It’s always turned me off simply because it seems so dishonest and insulting to everyone’s intelligence. Woody Harrelson, I believe you should be able to smoke a few joints every once in a while (or, even, to smoke a lot of joints all the time). But, for God’s sake, don’t insult my intelligence and pretend that your fight for marijuana legalization is motivated by your concern over America’s shocking lack of quality hemp-based yoga pants and messenger bags.

[legalization of] Prostitution comes immediately to mind, though perhaps a distinction should be made in that case between the [icky] thing/activity itself whose legalization some might foolishly advocate, and those pillars of the republic who might in repeated moments of weakness fall to the blandishments of the purveyors of said icky things/activities. Senator Vitter, your wife is calling.