"My point is that legalization, as we think of it with other products, simply wouldn't be possible in the current tort atmosphere. MJ might make a go of it with hefty insurance costs tagged on, but other more harmful drug manufacturers would simply be unable to make it work. The pharmaceuticals have a hard enough time with drugs that have medically redeeming purposes."
Well take exemple with Amsterdam...just make it legal in specific environement, not at the corner store, but in places equivalent to coffeeshop...All the stoners gather at one point, more easily under control, if you fear they might break out crazy!! Where would be the problem in that? Also why would it be bad if the pharmaceutical suffered...that would mean that marijuana is in fact a medication!
The Amsterdam model doesn't solve the tort issue anymore than gathering all smokers together would have alleviated the Big Tobacco law suits.
Also why would it be bad if the pharmaceutical suffered...that would mean that marijuana is in fact a medication!
You've lost me again here. MJ is a medication? Not deductive reasoning from being sued and non sequitur to the argument in any event. Imprimis, most drugs have some capacity to help or hinder the body. Morphine is medication if you need it, but a highly addictive and illegal brain toaster if you don't. Would you just explain who will legally produce and sell crack cocaine (as it is a great example), without immediately being sued into bankruptcy.
I notice a strong inclination to simplification in the legalization argument, that ignores even addressing obvious problems like tort law.
Additionally, your Amsterdam model begs the question of whether you would require municipalities to provide such areas and under what authority, so that junkies wouldn't have to travel, and what of our rural pot heads?