Close. Legalization of marijuana should not be determined by a comparison to the risks of alcohol. For example, the arguments have gone, a) Marijuana is not as harmful as alcohol, b)Alcohol is legal, therefore c)Marijuana should be legal because it's not as harmful. I am not swayed by this argument, and it's an insult to my intelligence when it's made. I think there needs to be better arguments than that before people will vote to overturn the current laws.
If marijuana were legalized, then we can look at where it fits in with the other legal drugs (such as alcohol) in order to determine how it is to be distributed. Prescription only? State stores? Federal stores? 18 and over? 21 and over? Grow your own?
You seem to be arguing that legalization should not be determined by a criteria of "acceptable risk". If risk is to remain a factor, the it will have to be as an absolute - "risk" or "no risk".
For example, the arguments have gone, a) Marijuana is not as harmful as alcohol, b)Alcohol is legal, therefore c)Marijuana should be legal because it's not as harmful. I am not swayed by this argument, and it's an insult to my intelligence when it's made. I think there needs to be better arguments than that before people will vote to overturn the current laws.
What do you consider the appropriate criteria?
If marijuana were legalized, then we can look at where it fits in with the other legal drugs (such as alcohol) in order to determine how it is to be distributed.
If legalization is to be determined by risk, in absolute terms, then prohibition should be maintained if there is any risk. The decision to legalize would have to be based upon a determination of an absence of risk, and you are arguing that we should not make any determinations about acceptable risk until we have first determined that there is no risk.