[dragonwriter]

> How is it good that it is now harder to arrest for possession?

It would be easier to arrest for possession if searches, seizures, and arrests didn't require probable cause, and police could just arrest anyone, anywhere for any reason or none at all -- and search anything anywhere without consent for any reason or none at all, and use any evidence so obtained in prosecution.

Much of the Bill of Rights -- and much of the concept of individual rights against government underlying and preceding it -- is based on the belief that making it easier for the government to arrest and prosecute people even for things that everyone agrees are bad is often less of a benefit than the powers granted to government in order to achieve that are a harm.

So that's at least one school of thought on how this could be good even though it makes it harder to arrest for possession, even if one things that arrests for possession (where actual possession occurs) are a good thing.

[BryanB55]

Phrased this way makes sense. The parent comment sounded more like "drugs should be legal" than it did about individual rights.

And maybe they should be legal, I'm not sure what would help society more so I don't particularly have a stance either way.

Unfortunately those who think they should be downvoted this question. I guess they'd rather not argue their opinion and just hide any comment that questions their opinion.

[hn_]

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" (Blackstone's formulation)

[Igglyboo]

Eugenics would help society a ton but it's obviously horrible from a moral standpoint. We don't live in a utilitarian society, drugs being legal should have nothing to do with how much they help society.