I don't think those points really link together. 1) This argument is about negative reinforcement argument. Specifically how increasing levels of it haven't f

I don't think those points really link together. 1) This argument is about negative reinforcement argument. Specifically how increasing levels of it haven't fixed the problems that lead to high crime in those neighbourhoods in the first place and in some cases has made those neighbourhoods more dangerous. We already know tough on crime policies don't work. It's why we don't chop off the hands of thieves. It's why states with the death penalty still have plenty of murders. 2) The argument isn't against negative reinforcement it's that marijuana shouldn't be illegal in the first place. 3) Implies the people you're arguing against are in favour of at least some negative reinforcement.