Jim Henderson wrote:

> If it were the team of medical experts who were asserting what I'm 
> terming the "moral superiority", that would be one thing.  But here in 
> the US, it's largely the same people who insist that because Evolution is 
> a "theory", the "theory" of creationism should also be taught AS PART OF 
> SCIENCE CURRICULUM.  (Caps for emphasis)
> 
> In other words, it's not people who have medical training or even 
> chemistry training.  It's people who think Evolution is a myth 
> perpetrated by the liberal media (in extreme cases) and who don't think 
> there's such a thing as mutation even though it's *all around them* - and 
> they religiously go and get flu vaccinations because the flu strain has 
> evolved to be able to counter the last vaccination.

So... the people who think pot should be illegal are the people who are 
apparently already smoking it? :-.

> Look at the case for medical marijuana, for example - here in the US, it 
> is a federal crime to grow or smoke pot, even though some states have 
> legalized it to some extent.  The *doctors*
> are in favor of it, and it's the anti-science people who think it should 
> be left illegal.

Presumably "legal under prescription" though?

> Now, turn it into a well-regulated industry with standards of production, 
> and you see several positive side effects:
> 
>  * "Product" quality increases and you end up with fewer accidental 
> overdoses (which can happen when one batch is really weak and the next is 
> overly strong - IOW, no consistent quality control).  
>  * You have fewer people being locked up for non-violent offenses (such 
> as possession or possession with intent to use/intent to distribute). 
>  * Those who are distributing have to be licensed to do so - so you know 
> most of who is distributing them and you know they have met some standard 
> of knowledge in order to legally distribute.
>  * You will have created a market that you can collect taxes from where 
> money is currently changing hands and nothing goes to pay for services 
> that those users consume as a result of their use (just like smoking/
> drinking)
>  * Prices can be standardized and normalized, potentially reducing 
> violent crime from people who can't afford to get their 'fix' today

Well, that does make logical sense.

On the other hand, make it legal and 5,000x more people will be doing it.

In my opinion, tobacco should be illegal. We'd see far fewer people 
dying a slow, lingering death from cancer. But it's far more profitable 
for the government to allow its sale and tax it to hell. So it will 
forever more be legal. Stupid but true...

> There are also plenty of people who think suicide should be allowed as an 
> option in certain circumstances.

Sure. And *that* is a whole *other* debate...

Post a reply to this message