The de facto legalization has not removed the crime or the criminals from the industry.
And Len, it was you that brought up the 21st. not me. To the best of my knowledge it has nothing to do with pot.
But since you brought up the 21st. The people who violated the law on a large scale then also ran prostitution and gambling enterprises and were willing to murder to further their business. They had that criminal mentality.
The 21st was submitted to the country for approval something the so-called “medical” pot growers seem unwilling to do.
No, thank you, I neither need nor want to have someone with a pot fried brain in the car in front of me anymore than some brain dead drunk who can't function.
And the notion that legalization would take the profit out of pot is silly. The greatest effect would be for large growers to take control who could meet government regulations.
There is no such thing as legal for “all practical matters”. In law, something is either legal or it is illegal. There is also no such thing as 200% of the population.
You’re saying at one point that prohibition has no correlation to pot and then make the exact point that legal growers would be able to make a profit in precisely the same manner that alcohol producers make their profit, by meeting government regulations. And without guns and ammunition.
It’s almost like you don’t want to actually think about the issue as much as spout banalities.
De facto legalization is not the same as real legalization.
The de facto legalization in CA is that users aren't mercilessly prosecuted. But, prosecuting them is a lot like prosecuting well-intentioned gun-owners for minor technical violations. The big action, and the big money, is with the criminal growers. Real legalization would make that go away. Why would someone take over part of a National Forest to grow weed, threatening any hiker who stumbled on the field, if it were legal to grow on a farm?