"Drugs are bad, m'kay". Not only did you make up an argument for your imaginary opponent, but you caricatured the argument. The irony of ending your comment with the words "intellectually dishonest" is nosebleed-pungent.
So let's pretend the effects can be measured accurately. If they are positive (and they will be), then it's simply an I told you so situation.
If the results are negative (zomg, more kids are smoking pot and failing to graduate), then to take that data and say that ending prohibition was a mistake without taking the data about the damage caused by prohibition (funding drug cartels, taxpayer funded SWAT teams that assault citizens/property and not always the "legal" target, arresting citizens for the crime of using an intoxicant that is not on the approved list, etc), then that shows that the person asking the question isn't interested in the real question: is it worth it?
There's too much evidence on the origins of this prohibition (racism and a tool of oppression of "dirty hippy anti-war protesters") and evidence supporting repealing of this (Nixon's drug commission report which was ignored, as well as Portugal's decriminalization of drugs, etc) to support any drug prohibition. It's an abysmal failure and goes far beyond depriving some stoner of getting high -- it's killing people.
Sorry to be so strident, but this discussion is like arguing with Jenny McCarthy and giving her equal time about how vaccines cause autism. Maybe we should just stop doing them and wait and see how that turns out too?
