The irony is that prohibition does work at what it sets out to do but with massive side effects. It reduces levels of consumption, reduces levels of illness, reduces domestic and street violence, increases health, increases safety of women and children in the home, increases family stability, increases productivity. Obviously it also brings about massive organised criminal networks along with it which cause huge harms.
The question is what does an approach look like where we keep benefits of reduced usage with less crime.
I know in the uk looking at prohibition and cocaine, it has failed.
Almost every pub after a weekend will have traces of cocaine in the toilets - even the Houses of Parliament has cocaine in the toilets when it has been tested.
I honestly don’t believe if it was legal then there would be many more users taking it.
I think because alcohol is already legal and has problems associated with it you would get an incremental increase in crimes like alcohol driven fighting and vandalism, drunk driving etc which would increase (drug driving, drug driven fighting and vandalism, etc) but overall there would be a reduction in harm, and potential benefits like taxation which can be used for treatment and education to steer people away from harm.
Many of the things you're claiming haven't been established. It's hard to find a reduction in street violence when prohibition itself is a primary cause of gang wars and a major funding source for violent criminal organizations. The productivity claims are questionable at best. Amphetamine, for example, quite often on the prohibition hit list and banned in several countries, is sold in the US under the brand name Adderall and is typically not associated with reduced productivity. Conversely, cannabis does have a reputation for reducing productivity, but it can also be used for pain management and in that context do the opposite. Cocain is a little of both.
It's obvious that what's needed here is for people to use drugs responsibly rather than in excess, which is an education problem rather than a law enforcement problem.
> reduces levels of illness, reduces domestic and street violence, increases health, increases safety of women and children in the home, increases family stability, increases productivity.
These are bald assertions, and particularly suspect in light of deaths caused by contaminants and by unknown doses.
Even the claim of reduced use is suspect. Increased but safer use of some substances, without criminal consequences, could easily be a net gain in all of the categories you mention. Particularly if some folks prone to violent assholery chose things other than booze…
The question is what does an approach look like where we keep benefits of reduced usage with less crime.