I agree, the law just makes things worse by increasing the number of people we call criminals.

However as a counter example, even if the murder rate didn't change by de-criminalizing murder, I'd still argue that there should be a law against it.

This is a false equivalence. Pot smoking is victimless (at most, your landlord will need to get rid of the smell for the next non-smoking tenant). Murder has, by definition, serious consequences for someone else.

In a legal system whose premise is that one should be free to do anything so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, it it consistent to legalise pot and keep murder illegal.

"at most, your landlord will need to get rid of the smell for the next non-smoking tenant"

And while you're there, will need to find a way to get rid of the smell for everyone in a 500 feet radius (im exaggerating, of course).

While I'm absolutely ok with it being legal, and it certainly should not be a criminal offense...it at least should follow rules similar to tobacco with a twist. That shit can seriously ruin the day of everyone living around. Entire city parks are becoming impossible to go through unless you're looking for a contact high.

So it definitely does not deserve to be a crazy SWAT team involved criminal offense, but victimless, not quite.

It is my opinion that it should definitely be illegal to smoke (anything) on public property. Landlords should be able to choose (via terms in a lease) whether or not it is okay to smoke on their property.

Just to nitpick, I shouldn't be allowed to smoke a cigar around a campfire on BLM land?

I was thinking more in public places where there are other members of the public within a reasonable proximity, but I will grant you a valid point. My general proposal does not need to apply to every situation. Though defining the exact circumstances wherein someone may and may not smoke on public land may not be worth the hassle, and a blanket ban might be preferable to some endlessly complex regulation... something to think about, though. For your own health, please consider putting the cigar down, though :)

Actually, in that scenario, the campfire is more likely to be a health threat to asthmatic members of the public (about 7% in the U.S.) than the cigar!

yes, that was the twist :)

I wasn't trying to equate murder with drug use.

The parent question asked for a counter example of where the law makes no difference in the offence.

The parent question appeared to me to be making that statement irrespective of what the law was. So I just picked the most extreme form of law I could think of.

You just demonstrated the bias that the guy against legalisation is affected.

If the murder rate didn't change by de-criminalizing murder at all, then it would be more rational to spend the resources on other ways that could help lower the rate or help deal with the facts that they are happening.

You make it sound as though passing a law against has huge resources involved. Since we all agree murder is bad, there isn't any argument or lobbying and a ban on murder and the law is simply passed. Even the investigation techniques can largely come from other similar crimes, fingerprints, DNA, asking questions are all reusable from other crimes. Some are unique, but not a huge cost compared to drugs.

Then there is the huge investment in thing that only catch people with drugs. Drug sniffing dogs, housing for literally millions of non-violent offenders, training on finding drugs.

In addition to the victim which others have commented on this is an extremely poor analogy.

We spend lots of money investigating and prosecuting murders. We have a non-perfect system that sometimes throws innocent people in jail.

And if banning murder did not lower the murder rate than banning murder would be a piece of legislation with no benefits and only costs. Not sure why we want to pass legislation that puts innocent people in jail and sets money on fire for no benefit.

Yes, but this counter-argument assumes the two things (pot and murder) are equally bad, or at least, assumes both are bad.

Which is the whole point of the inquiry, we can't start taking it for granted -- whereas for murder, it's a pretty safe bet by now, 3 millennia plus into written human history.

They don't mention the number of arrests or lives of casual marijuana smokers destroyed for no reason before and after the law was passed -- if it saved a single person from having a criminal record, being locked in a cage, or having their life destroyed then I'd say it's a pretty huge win.

The Cato report just shows that we don't have to give anything up in order to get that big win -- it's free with no downside.

"nothing changed" is wrong. They expect to have crime rate lower in few years?? How many jobs was added with this?plenty... How many money they made? plenty...