That is not at all what I said. There is a cost/benefits analysis under discussion. You apparently believe that the costs are understated. I think the study shows the opposite. The fact that Friedman and many other economists who specialize in studying this stuff come down on one side of the arguement means to me that I have to at least consider the evidence. You seem to want to dismiss it out of hand because of moral or other grounds. I take a bit more clinical view and come down on the side of the legalizers - and btw I don't smoke the stuff so you can skip the predictable ad hominem attacks.