You keep making the same 'points' with little evidence to back them up. The burden of proof is not met on most of your claims and telling us to skip the talking point while not addressing thoroughly it is a little absurd.
Lets take your argument that criminals are born that way and therefore will move to some other crime if the economic incentive to sell marijuana is removed. See "Transitions From Prison To Community: Understanding Individual Pathways" by Visher in which the recidivism rate is estimated at 70%. A habitual criminal, which you generalize to include all criminals, bad from birth, would always commit another crime, so since the recidivism rate is not 100% that's at least ~30% of criminals who are either rehabilitated or perhaps were criminals due to circumstances such as vast black market profits rather than being born bad. Also with the number of bogus laws in this nation, more than likely we are all breaking some law right now, but that doesn't mean we are defective.
Furthermore, since you fail to challenge the claim based on an economic perspective, I will assume you agree in general with the whole supply-demand argument already given, you're counterclaim is that it will simply reallocate criminals into another black market as you did in your example about bootleggers. First, prove that all or most bootleggers moved into another illegal exercise as you claim and generalize that to the current situation. Second, you talk about a transition of non-violent offenders into violent offenders because all criminals are the same in your world view. Again not proven, and a good chunk of psychology work would disagree with you, this has been studied in detail in domestic abusers. Also, since it is a black market, the only way to settle disputes is with violence, so the fact that it is illegal might be contributing to the violence you speak of. Third, even if all of the above is true, it doesn't mean that it should be illegal. Prohibition as you pointed out (still don't think your claims are all true but lets say they are) did all of those things, but that doesn't imply we should have kept prohibition.
As for the cartel point, the nice thing about the argument given is that it applies to many of the ways organized crime raises revenue (drugs other than marijuana, prostitution, illegal gambling and so on) . As a medical professional, I abhor drug use, but it's time for us to get realistic, prohibition doesn't work and the current war on drugs with mandatory sentencing laws and militarized police forces simply increases the profits for those willing to take the risk. I've met my fair share of people who are involved in the trade and they aren't scarface or dahmer, they are some looser trying to make a quick buck.
But the stats being used to discuss marijuana being safe are misleading, you can eat or consume alot of it and it won't kill you, its LD50 is absurd, so is LSDs for that matter, but long term use and high dose short term use does have negative effects that are difficult to measure. That being said, it is safer than alcohol though in alot of ways, the weed not the acid
I wonder if some of them were ever at their doctors office for any ailment. They all must have been allergic to prescription pills, for their ailments, since they were buying everything but. Unless...... brownies, gum drops and lollypops are used to combat your "allergy" to taking pills.
