What we’re really arguing about here is how many people would or should be sacrificed in a legalization regime versus a prohibition one. Brooks wants to save some fraction of pot users who wouldn’t try the drug but for legalization and will become consumed with it once they do. Legalizers want to save that fraction of pot users who, like David Brooks, have no problem managing their use and may eventually “age out” of it but end up in prison anyway because they got caught. How many of the latter should be sacrificed for the former? Or vice versa?
How about we just legalize drugs and let the sacrifices be made by those who personally choose to do so, rather than those who run afoul of the all-encompassing tyranny of the enforcer state?
BTW, just so you know: I don’t pay any attention to David Brooks about anything, given his tendency to masturbate to pictures of Barack Obama’s trouser creases.