1. You don't want people breaking the law at all.
2. You don't want police being hurt / killed
3. You'd prefer we all get along happily (I'm assuming this as most
people in your position would claim it)
Now the only thing stopping this from happening is one other belief:
1. Stoners should be stopped.
Unfortunately you then launch into an argument using the three desires
to support the believed cure.
Desire 1. Accomplished by de-criminalising drugs.
Desire 2. Possibly accomplished, at least in the lower class drugs, as
the violence tends, in most studies, to be shown to be initiated by
suppliers / transporters rather than users and, in the studies showing
user instigated violence, is usually shown as financially motivated. De
criminalisation leads to lower prices in all cases I can think of
(Amsterdam, US prohibition period) thereby reducing financially
Desire 3. Probably never going to be accomplished.
All by changing the belief.
Prohibition has never worked in any circumstance. Your arguments are the
same used by the supporters of the Alcohol prohibition. We have learned,
as a society, to allow alcohol and construct laws which are more
intelligent regarding the use thereof.
net result is a happier, less "criminal" society.
Now I assume that you will now move to the gateway argument which I will
argue pre emptively.
You will posit:
Marijuana is a gateway to other drugs.
Now this is not proven / disproven in any manner which will satisfy
everyone involved so.
This pro of this argument is based on human tendencies.
The same tendency will of course apply in another situation. Crime. I
posit as a corollary to this:
Petty crime is a gateway to serious crime.
You will agree with that I can almost guarantee. So by maintaining the
criminalisation of minor drugs you are actually increasing the number of
serious criminals. Have you considered that?