Mildly Infuriating

Oh and yes, it would end illegal trade to the extent ending the prohibition of alcohol did.

I live in Finland and black market drugs are 1000x easier to get than black market alcohol. Or black market guns for that matter. Both exist, but not really.

Everyone knows someone who sells drugs of some sort. Most people's definitely don't know people who sell alcohol or drugs. Well, alcohol is slightly more common, but usually it's just flogged tax free or even completely legally ordered in bulk from Germany and then sold to friends.

But yeah, the science is in and yes, legalising drugs would kill the illegal drug trade.

Just like I said. You won't even question your attitude, despite the overwhelming objective evidence that you're wrong, despite everyone in the drug trade admitting to this, despite world leaders calling for legalisation. See what I mean when I say that it's people like you who are responsible for the horrible drug situation that we have? That amount of willful ignorance is literally harmful to society.

Where exactly do you think the guns come from? From legal manufacturers. Comparing guns to drugs is appealing because they seem so similar, yet they both have the exact same solution: regulation.

The US doesn't regulate drugs, and it doesn't really regulate guns at all either. In other countries, black markets for guns are ridiculously negligible. They exist, sure, but they're ridiculously small compared to the US and the Americas in general. Perhaps because the US has a military-industrial complex. Again, about what makes money for people.

The only way to properly implement regulation to guns is to have proper gun laws, which most other countries have. The US is a massive outlier in gun-violence, exactly because of the lack of regulation.

The argument is also disingenuous because there's only violent uses for guns, but the same doesn't apply for recreational substances. Show me one larger culture group of humans that don't have some sort of recreational way to get their buzz on. Might take you a moment. But to point out a culture which doesn't have guns at all, or at least nearly to the level the US does? Pick a map and throw a dart on it, you'll more than likely land on an example.

Legalizing drugs will not solve the problem. Instead, you will have food service workers carrying drugs like opium on them, without legal repercussions

This is exactly what I mean. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so you make these asinine arguments that were brainwashed into you. So what if your waiter has a pinch of opium in his pocket? Alcohol is legal. Waiters carry alcohol all the time, for work even. Why doesn't that bother you? Is it perhaps because it's not cool to drink on the job? Would legalising drugs make it so that it's socially acceptable to be fucking smashed at work? I've heard a ton of variations of this moronic bs "argument." "*B-B-Bbut if we legalise drugs, I'll have to worry about my surgeon being high when he's performing surgery" "I don't want to have to be piloted by some junkie scum" Like... when did you last meet a drunk pilot? A drunk surgeon? A surgeon who's high? They have constant access to high grade narcotics, you know. Again, exactly what I meant, saying that you have to make up these fantasy scenarios which would never ever happen and even then the logic doesn't even work.

You should ask yourself why was the prohibition of alcohol repealed. Googling that you might come upon names like "Al Capone" and even something as familiar as "Machine Gun Kelly", but this one isn't about the rapper. (Shortly: organised crime got so out of hand and the toxicity of homemade booze and even government poisoned booze that it was insane and the situation couldn't be continued without society falling apart.)

Legalising drugs makes them safer, gets them out of the hands of criminals, meaning taxes for the government, health for drug abusers, and less stigma for responsible drug users. Yes, we exist, much like gays did even back in the 50's. They just weren't talked about all that much, for some weird reason. It's not even just about what good it will do. It's also about personal liberty.

"I don't have to agree with you." No, you don't, but this isn't my opinion. This is reality. So you're saying "I don't have to agree with reality and objective facts." Which is exactly what I said in the first place; willful ignorance.

You did exactly as I said you would, and protested loudly, but I bet you didn't read a single one of those links or even watch the 5 second clip. There really aren't any other options except being ignorant of the matter or directly benefitting from drugs being illegal. Those are the only two type of people who think prohibition should be maintained. And if you think "I don't think they should be legalised but I don't benefit from illegal drugs in any way" then you're in the former group.