[ethan]

>Simply because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :)

I totally agree, and that's why we should bring back alcohol prohibition. Sure, it would increase alcohol-related violence, but "people will commit crimes regardless", so what does it matter?

[ErrantX]

What I'm saying isn't necessarily that this is a reason against legalization, just that we shouldn't call legalization a solution to the crime factor.

[ethan]

Why not? It is a solution to the cannabis-crime factor. Prohibition of alcohol isn't "a solution to the crime factor", but it certainly led to a reduction in obtaining-alcohol-related-crime.

[pyre]

> Why not? It is a solution to the cannabis-crime factor.

I think that you're missing the point. Like was said before, most of the people committing crimes related to cannabis will just move on to commit the same crimes, but related to another drug or illegal substance. The effect on overall crime will probably be negligible.

On the other hand, it would reduce the 'crime' related to things like possession. I guess it really comes down to which stats you are using to look at 'crime'...

[ErrantX]

> but it certainly led to a reduction in obtaining-alcohol-related-crime.

As I pointed out, it's incomparable because it is a different type of crime. Prohibition of Alcohol probably would reduce the overall amount of crime in society. But it's another matter. If, on the other hand, prohibition drove individuals to other (hypothetically legal) substances which had the same affect as alcohol and were eventually as widespread then it is a comparable issue.

You can't turn around and present legalization as a way of reducing crime - because that seems very unlikely. It's better to rely on other arguments.