Well of course, if that's the trade off. But promoting it as an integral part of the solution helps perpetuate the same tired government-should-be-involved thinking that caused the problem in the first place.
Pragmatically, it wouldn't simply legitimize the current drug dealers overnight. You'd have to sell them on bullshit paperwork and becoming part of a system that they're predisposed to hate. Good luck with that.
Also the more complexity that goes into "appropriate" regulation, the more likely that specific (ie used by the upper classes) drugs will be the only ones that get deillegalized. Which will fail to address the actual problem at all.
We shouldn't give a shit about current drug dealers. The idea is to allow other people to provide a safe and consistent product out in the open, out-competing traditional drug dealers. These drug dealers will no longer have the opportunity to exploit children as street-level pushers, those children will get thrown into the legal system realistically erasing all job prospects. Legalized possession of drugs will keep even more innocents out of the legal system, and furthermore will remove many of the tools that police have traditionally used to justify violating people's right. "I smelled weed" will no longer be an excuse that police can use to frisk any minority they please.
> "Also the more complexity that goes into "appropriate" regulation, the more likely that specific (ie used by the upper classes) drugs will be the only ones that get deillegalized. Which will fail to address the actual problem at all."
The entire class of "we're only legalizing 'upper class' drugs" arguments are complete nonsense. The fact is that disadvantaged minorities are massively over-represented in marijuana arrests, despite using marijuana at similar rates as white americans.
> "But promoting it as an integral part of the solution helps perpetuate the same tired government-should-be-involved thinking that caused the problem in the first place."
We've got bigger fish to fry. Drug laws are modern Jim Crow laws, concerns about the merits of taxing vices and luxuries have a lower priority.
> We shouldn't give a shit about current drug dealers
And who do you think that that society is structured around?
> allow other people
"Other people" are going to invest capital in Camden to setup a single-serving storefront that will be violently attacked by vertically-integrated competition? Sure..
There is already a mature market in place, and you're saying the right way is to create a different one and hope that the consumers switch. Maybe that works in theory, right up until junkies start getting beat up for breaking rank and going to the sellout drug store.
> we're only legalizing 'upper class' drugs" arguments are complete nonsense
It's not a claim that upper classes are the most affected by pot being illegal, it's that pot being illegal is something that actually affects the upper classes. Please show me a seriously-taken proposal to "legalize and regulate" pot, cocaine, crack and meth alike. This will never happen, and the Jim Crow laws will continue just fine without pot.
> > We shouldn't give a shit about current drug dealers
> And who do you think that that society is structured around?
That society, if you can even call it one, is the very thing that legalization is designed to destroy. Hardened criminals hiring 13 year olds to deal off street-corners to make some cash to pay for their siblings groceries is a self-destructive local-maxima.
If you want to understand legalization, then you need be able to understand a society free of the influences of discrimination enabling drug laws. We want to not break up social structures and support in the first place.
> "This will never happen, and the Jim Crow laws will continue just fine without pot."
Well no, they wouldn't. See: the massive amount of black people jailed for marijuana alone. Nothing is a full-proof silver bullet, we are dealing with shades of gray, but marijuana laws are the biggie. They need to go, even if we cannot manage to tackle anything else.
Progress has already been made on the crack front, bringing penalties back down to the level as penalties for 'standard' cocaine (a drug with high-class associations). There is more work to be done, but we are getting there one baby-step at a time.
Pragmatically, it wouldn't simply legitimize the current drug dealers overnight. You'd have to sell them on bullshit paperwork and becoming part of a system that they're predisposed to hate. Good luck with that.
Also the more complexity that goes into "appropriate" regulation, the more likely that specific (ie used by the upper classes) drugs will be the only ones that get deillegalized. Which will fail to address the actual problem at all.