I was trying to imply with some humor that the issue is very complicated. It appears that Hall’s concern was with marijuana.
A basic education starts at least with the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act (also see the Hague Convention—very important), and goes at least through the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. There are the events that led to those laws and cases that resulted from them.
And strange as it may seem, the legal wrestling isn’t the most important contributor to the eventual outcome of the matter in civilizations. As the trend with a popular “recreational” drug reaches a certain point in societal change, it becomes a human rights issue that will be settled either by agreements or with more harsh measures. I’m alluding to histories in various countries with this paragraph.
The arguments don’t end with what is perceived as being natural, like khat, kratom, coca, etc. They end with what is eventually perceived as being deleterious to individuals or nations (economies, defense, government, etc.). What are the effects in a lifetime of use of a drug? In other words, how does a drug change individual perceptions and political opinions? How does it change national perceptions and political opinions?
In the end, there are two classes of people: those who use the popular drug and those who don’t. The difference becomes very contrasted before the end of such a drug’s cycle in a civilization.
How do we resolve arguments about a particular drug? Users perceive a drug from the point of view of a user. So there’s no resolution, until the trend in a nation runs its course.
You are obviously in litigation concerning marijuana because nowhere does Kris Anne mention or even imply she has marijuana as a basis for her statement.
Your comment sounded like an attourney's argument for the defense.