08-14-2016, 01:03 PM
I will circle back to this, because it's the primary point Mark Levin seemed to be circling his way to, and something that deserves scrutiny.
Currently, people with a dependency are more likely to commit crimes if they are denied access to that on which they are dependent. This could be drugs, alcohol, or any number of things.
After decriminalization, I still think there is a higher chance of a drug ABUSER committing crime. Anyone who's seen someone knock-down drunk (or been that person, I guess) can attest that they are more likely to do some things while impaired, and very few of them are beneficial to society or the person who's drunk. Within that broad, vague category of drunken acts is a subset where the action is not so cute or harmless. This is the part where someone is too hammered to drive and runs over someone, or where they are too drunk to understand (or say) "no," or when assault sounds like a good idea, or showing up at an ex's and getting really upset that she's moved on... and directing that upset through your fists or a bat at the new guy... you get the idea. Things can go south. There are other drugs that really blur right from wrong, or twist reality in a pretty scary way, and all it takes is a bad trip and the borderline ability to still use a weapon to make things scary for everyone around you as well.
The number of drug-fueled crimes would still be super low --- and definitely lower than they are now --- but people with their emotions amplified, their strength upped, or their inhibitions removed are going to be more likely to do something regrettable than the same people in their fully sober state.