Considering that alcohol has non-intoxicating uses, its legaility really has nothing to do with the question of allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes.
"Considering that alcohol has non-intoxicating uses, its legaility really has nothing to do with the question of allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes."
Right, marijuana has no non-intoxicating uses at all. /sarc
I'm not going off on the notion that medical marijuana makes sense--it generally IS incrementalism by leftists, with notable exceptions embodied in the Constitutionalist freepers here--but to say that pot is all just about an addict's high with no medical usage or no non-intoxicating uses makes no sense.
Watching "Hemp for Victory" alone should tip you off to that.
The plant was made illegal through sensationalism and propagandizing, and remains illegal only through the same. Anyone arguing against its legalization simply can't make an argument for banning pot that they couldn't make against cigarettes or booze. And many of those WoD advocates would make those arguments against cigarettes or booze, failing to see the distinction--but most all of the same crowd that crows here about cigarette laws regulating private eating places would never accept similar local laws banning them from carrying a Bible or a baby or a gun into those places.
I think it all boils down to 'hippies bad.'