No, prudence dictates we maintain the status quo, lacking a compelling reason to change.
I haven't seen a compelling reason to change from you or anyone else on this board as to why marijuana (not crack cocaine, not all drugs, not those drug less harmful than alcohol, not "soft" drugs), marijuana should be made legal.
If your argument were "marijuana would replace alcohol, 1:1", I would call that a compelling argument. "Marijuana cures cancer", I would call a compelling argument.
"Because, dude" is not a compelling argument.
Your arguments are generic. It costs money. It interferes with freedom. It's unconstitutional. The WOD is intrusive.
Those are good arguments for the legalization of all drugs. I'm not at all interested in debating the legalization of all drugs. What is your argument for the legalization of just marijuana?
Your arguments are generic.
Heh.
Of course not, it's a loser for you. It's one you can't win. You know it, so you try to obfuscate. If you admit that all drug laws are wrong, you have to admit that pot laws are wrong as well.
Your childish assertion of rights you make up out of whole cloth sinks your little authoritarian tugboat.
"What is your argument for the legalization of just marijuana?"
It is an herb!
Not a drug as you keep repeating, though in the same breath you would deny it has medicinal properties.
Government, nor the FDA controls herbs, why?
An herb given by God to man and beast alike at the beginning of time and which has grown freely almost everywhere,
including here long before our nation was formed can not be permissibly eradicable or controllable by the federal government through powers supposedly rooted in the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. It is an impossible task to devise a logical explanation of how this power could be attained rightly. In light of the rest of the Constitution any such perceived mandate dissolves.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their
Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness."
Preamble: ...secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...
Amendment V: nor shall (anyone) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the PEOPLE.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Nowhere in the Constitution is it enumerated what one may put into ones body. Therefore, that right is reserved for the states or the people. However,
since God has already specified in the Bible what one may consume, it is, in fact, the People’s God given right.
Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood,
but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers
of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places.
I already told you: the "generic" arguments combined with prudence. To rule out an argument because a subset of it applies to all drugs is simply to duck the marijuana debate.