Illegality creates some friction, but removes others. In some areas, it would be easier for a minor to access illegal drugs than it would be to access legal one

Illegality creates some friction, but removes others. In some areas, it would be easier for a minor to access illegal drugs than it would be to access legal ones. Nobody is going to openly sell alcohol or tobacco to kids at a retail establishment, they'd instantly lose their license. While I won't go so far as to say that every illegal drug dealer would be willing to sell to minors, it's a much smaller leap from "I'm already breaking the law by selling drugs, so what's one more law to break?" versus "I own a legitimate retail establishment, which is in jeopardy if I break this particular law". Drugs themselves should be entirely outside the scope of law enforcement. Plenty of the things that are brought up by prohibitionists would still be illegal under a host of other laws, outside of possession and use itself. Rob someone to get your next fix? Congrats, robbery is still illegal, off to jail with you. The history on this is pretty clear. Drug prohibition has caused more harm than it has protected people from. It can also springboard into discussion of historical (and current) racial disparity, as such laws almost inevitably affect the disenfranchised and downtrodden disproportionately. Drugs are not a criminal issue. They are a public health issue. Harm reduction policies work.