Of course not. Everyone agrees we should do what tacticalogic wants.
I gave you the criteria. I mentioned decriminalization. I mentioned medical marijuana. These are valid arguments. And I told you how I now feel about them.
You can make the constitutional arguments. You can argue Commerce Clause, States Rights, Tenth Amendment. Fine. But those arguments must include all drugs for those arguments to be valid. I'm not ready to go there.
You can argue War On Drugs. Again, you have to legalize all drugs to end the WOD. You can legalize only marijuana, and the WOD will continue against all other drugs. Where's your benefit?
You can argue freedom and personal responsibility. Really? Personal responsibility? We've got the biggest social safety net in the world outside of socialist countries. We've got a legal system that denies any personal responsibility. I am not interested in spending even more of my tax dollars on this system.
Why don't you cite for me your "appropriate criteria" other than "I want to smoke dope?"
How about "The reasons given for imposing prohibition in the first place have been found to be objectively unsupportable."
Drugs like cocaine, alcohol, herion, cigarettes, etc, can and should be treated in different ways, but education most of all has shown to be the only thing to cause real long term trends in reduction of use.
Why don't you cite for me your "appropriate criteria" other than "I want to smoke dope?"
Believe it or not, I and many other have never touched the stuff, and don't intend to (thanks to education), but still favor decriminalization. That's because I do favor my rights and my tax dollars, both of which are wasted at an absurd rate.
I don't care if people want to smoke up, watch cartoons and laugh at nothing. It's a lot safer than drinking and driving, and less costly than treating chronic smoker cancer patients who hoist cigarette after cigarette to their lips in their hospital beds. Enough is enough.