That's a valid data point. Without moving the goal posts, I'd like to re-phrase the logic : The crux of this argument is that the supply chain for illicit mari

That's a valid data point. Without moving the goal posts, I'd like to re-phrase the logic : The crux of this argument is that the supply chain for illicit marijuana will be disrupted by legalization. In other words, legalizing will cause current (illegal) suppliers to go out of business and/or stop doing business with street / kid / high school dealers - thus reducing availability for underage kids. My issue with this logic is that I can't see why the demand for a product (marijuana) won't continue to drive supply once it's legalized. There will always be a way for a local high school dealer to find weed. Supply chains could easily re-route to accommodate demand in high schools. What I do find to be a compelling argument, however, is the notion that demand could decrease post-legalization. This seems rational to me. The alcohol comparison feels awkward, primarily due to the difficulty in trafficking in alcohol at the small scale. It's bulkier and decidedly more awkward to manage. Therefore, it's not exactly apples to apples. At one point, I also considered the fact that legalizing could decrease profit margins. However, low level dealers really don't have much of a profit margin to begin with. However, you have solid data and I'm primarily speculating :)