Perhaps a better title of this question would be, why competition among states and different cultural preferences among people in many states do not make more states try legalizing safe soft drugs?
This question Why are many safe narcotics illegal? ask why many safe narcotics are illegal. The answer is that because people believe that it's unsafe. It's not tradition bla bla bla.
Imagine if I have a business. Imagine if I believe falsely, that hiring LSD user people is bad. Someone else that doesn't share my believe will hire LSD users anyway. If it turns out that my beliefs are false, then I will be outcompeted. My fellow businessmen that hire drug users will be rich.
In fact, I've heard that many companies in Silicon Valley (please confirm this) don't even bother doing drug tests. There is a hidden secret that drug users are better programmers. Businesses, wanting profit, then turn a blind eyes.
Here is some articles https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4720121
If marijuana is indeed dangerous, it makes sense to prohibit it. If it's not it makes sense to allow it.
Companies do that. And different companies do that differently because they have different needs.
Companies in labor-intensive industries — hoteliers and home health care providers and employers with many warehouse and assembly jobs — are most likely to drop marijuana testing. By contrast, businesses that contract with the government or that are in regulated industries, like air travel, or that have safety concerns involving machinery, are continuing marijuana tests, employment lawyers say. Federal regulations require the testing of pilots, train operators and other key transportation workers.
So different businesses test for ganja correctly based on whether it is safe for the companies or not.
Here are corporate founders trying LSD to improve productivity
https://www.ft.com/content/0a5a4404-7c8e-11e7-ab01-a13271d1ee9c I suppose different countries should be similar
Now. It is possible that the believe is true. It is possible that drug users are more likely to blow up companies in suicide bombing or driving airplanes to corporate head quarters or get offended when you flush their LSD strip down the toilet. In that case, companies would stop hiring LSD users.
However, if LSD users turn out to be great programmers, most businesses will just hire them and don't bother testing for drugs.
So basically, for most businesses to make a decision, that decision doesn't need to be just "believed" but need to be true. Bad decisions lead to less profit and that motivate most business to make decisions based on what is true.
False beliefs rarely survive competition. Western Europe become advance because their countries compete with one another. When Magellan want to travel around the world and rejected by one country, he just ask for another country to allow him.
That means, if a drug is harmless, whoever have power on those states will make tons of profit by taxing it. They get benefits of tax without all the harms that come out of the drug.
May be it's true. May be legalizing soft drugs are dangerous. May be it can cause more terrorism or civil war. However, it's not even tried.
Why almost no state are willing to try legalizing most soft drugs?
Why most states agree to criminalize LSD, ganja, psychobilin MDMA, and DMT? Even though there are plenty of scientific evidences that those drugs are harmless and there are plenty of competition among states..
Why no state "try" okay let me try legalize MDMA. Oh it turns out I got tax revenue and no body dies, as expected.
In fact, many of those drugs that are now criminalized use to be legal. Psycobilin used to be legal in Indonesia. MDMA used to be legal in US. LSD used to be legal in US. Kratom used to be legal in US. We see evidences that almost no body die due to those drugs.
And yet people criminalize anyway.
The number of people looking for medical treatment due to MDMA, for example, is 20k out of 12 million users. That is around 1%. I can't find number of people die due to MDMA compared to usage but my estimate it's less than .1%.
Here is a graph
Most drugs are much saver than alcohol. Yet so many states choose to ban them even though they can make so much money taxing them instead. When people behave unselfishly, I am puzzled.
LSD kills like 1-10 out of millions of usage.
There are like 10 death per year in UK and about 20 million users.
Most drug users are not addicts https://theconversation.com/many-people-use-drugs-but-heres-why-most-dont-become-addicts-35504
So it just baffles me.
The states can make tons of money legalizing drugs and taxing them.
Yet most states don't and they don't even try. If only one state or province try, then all drug users will simply move to that state. We'll see if that one state that legalize get more prosperous or not.
In fact it happened though very slowly. If we see the effect, I can see that some people may still not like it. However, humans are diverse. How can out of so many states and countries, very few willing to try legalizing and taxing drugs?
One says that US government pressure other states to prohibit drugs. Is this even true?
I may be wrong. May be those drugs, like ganja are indeed dangerous. However, is this the reason? Are there any other explanation why most states keep safe soft drugs illegal?
Are they doing it so they so some officials can rake in tons of money? What?
It seems to be very profitable for voters to tax soft drugs than to prohibit them.
Does using drugs hurt "ruling class"? What?
Note: Somewhat similar questions would be, why many states before world war 2 didn't accept jewish immigrants. If jews are productive, there should be no problem. Another thing would be, why tax income if you can more effectively tax land? Again profit can jump to another country, land cannot. Yet most states tax income. It's as if there is a centralized authority telling those states, "prohibit soft drugs", "don't accept jewish immigrants", "tax income". However, there is no sovereign over sovereigns. States are all powerful. The states are effectively libertarian to each other. Each can do what they want. Yet, they, in tandem, seem to choose inefficient solutions like prohibiting soft drugs or taxing income. One explanation is I am just death wrong. Soft drugs are actually harmful, income taxes are actually good, and jews are actually evil. However, it doesn't look that way to me. Scientists tend to agree with me.
And yes. They work in tandem. Before, no states prohibit ganja. Then US did it and then other states follow. Is US like emperor or what? Many states just flip the finger when US asks something. Yet, for drug, they all suddenly agree that most soft drugs are dangerous despite scientific evidences to the contrary.
Even if it were true that soft drugs are actually harmful, I would expect normal diversity among cultures to have say, 10% of states legalizing it. Yet it doesn't happen.