The arguments posed by the supporters of legalization might be summarized as follows: (1) The drug laws have created evils far worse than the drugs themselves have--corruption, violence, street crime, and disrespect for the law. (2) Legislation passed to control drugs has failed to reduce demand. (3) You cannot have illegal that which a significant segment of the population in any society is committed to doing. You simply cannot arrest, prosecute, and punish such large numbers of people, particularly in a democracy. And specifically in this behalf, in a liberal democracy the government must not interfere with personal behavior if liberty is to be maintained. (4) If marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs were legalized, a number of very positive things would happen:  Drug prices would fail. 

Users could obtain their drugs at low, government-regulated prices and would no longer be forced to engage in prostitution and street crime to support their habits. 

The fact that the levels of drug-related crime would significantly decline would result in less crowded courts, jails, and prisons and would free law enforcement personnel to focus their energies on the "real criminals" in society. 

Drug production, distribution, and sale would be removed from the criminal arena; no longer would it be within the province of organized crime, and as a result, such criminal syndicates as the Medellín cartel and the Jamaican posses would be decapitalized and the violence associated with drug distribution rivalries eliminated.

Government corruption and intimidation by traffickers, as well as drug-based foreign policies, would be effectively reduced, if not eliminated entirely. 

The often draconian measures undertaken by police to enforce the drug laws would be curtailed, thus restoring to the American public many of its hard-won civil liberties.

To these contentions has been added the argument that legalization in any form or structure would have only a minimal impact on current drug use levels. There is the assumption that given the existing levels of access to most illegal drugs, current levels of use closely match demand. Thus, there would be no additional health, safety, behavioral, and/or other problems accompanying legalization. And, finally, the point is sometimes argued that through government regulation of drugs, the billions of dollars spent annually on drug enforcement could be better utilized. Moreover, by taxing government-regulated drugs, revenues would be collected that could be used for preventing drug abuse and treating those harmed by drugs.

Perhaps the most articulate and must fully developed arguments for legalizing drugs come from Steven Wisotsky, Arnold S. Trebach, and Ethan A. Nadelmann.

Although legalizing drugs has been debated for quite some time, Rep. Rangel of New York and researchers Inciardi and McBride point out that never has an advocate of the position structured a concrete proposal. Any attempt to legalize drugs would be extremely complex, but all proponents tend to proceed from a simplistic, "shoot-from-the-hip" position without first developing any sophisticated proposals. In this regard, there are many questions that would need to be addressed, including the following: 

What drugs should be legalized? Marijuana? Heroin? Cocaine? And if cocaine is designated for legalization, should proposals include such coca products as crack and other forms of freebase cocaine? Which hallucinogenic drugs should be legalized? LSD? Peyote? Mescaline? What about quaaludes? Should they be returned to the legal market? In short, which drugs should be legalized, according to what criteria, and who should determine the criteria?

Assuming that some rationally determined slate of drugs could be designated for legalization, what purity and potency levels should be permitted?

As with alcohol, should there be age limits as to who can and cannot use drugs? Should those old enough to drive be permitted to buy and use drugs?

Where should the drugs be sold? Over the counter in drug and grocery stores, as is the case with many pharmaceuticals? Through mail-order houses? In special vending machines strategically located in public restrooms, hotel lobbies, and train and bus stations? Should some, or all, of the newly legalized drugs be available only on a prescription basis? How often should these prescriptions be refillable?

Where should the raw material for drugs originate? Would cultivation be restricted to U.S. lands, or would foreign sources be permitted? Should trade restrictions of any type be imposed--by drug, amount, potency, purity, or country?

If drugs are to be legalized, should the drug market be a totally free one, with private industry establishing the prices, as well as the levels of purity and potency? What kinds of advertising should be permitted?

If drugs are to be legalized, what types of restrictions on their use should be structured? Should transportation workers, nuclear plant employees, or other categories of workers be forbidden to use them at all times, or just while they are on duty?

For any restrictions placed on sales, potency levels, distribution, prices, quantity, and advertising in a legalized drug market, what government bureaucracy should be charged with the enforcement of the legalization statutes? The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)? The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)? The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF)? State and local law enforcement agencies? Or should some new federal bureaucracy be created for the purpose? Going further, what kinds of penalties ought to be established for violation of the legalization restrictions? . . .