Yes, I know that there is a medicinal use for marijuana. However, it is still considered a Schedule I, D., (Hallucinogenic) drug. I posted previously, and it was ignored, that the feds should either make it a Schedule III drug (controlled use) and let the pharmaceutical companies make it for those who need it. Alternatively, let the tobacco companies make marijuana cigarettes, get the tax revenues and the so-called quality control that comes with standardization. We could even do both, so long as the plan of action for legalization is well thought out. This is hardly a "do-gooder" position. Because with legalization comes positive and negative consequences. Think about the dumb ass Mass judges that okayed gay marriage and forgot to consider the negative consequences of a gay divorce, e.g., who gets the adopted kids in a divorce? There's a case in Virginia about that issue now.
BTW, the poster-poseur was calling me a "do-gooder" without knowing the basis for my beliefs. S/he adamantly defended drug use, while piously and emphatically maintaining that s/he was not a drug user. My main gripe with the laissez-faire, pro-legalization libertarian argument is that it is an unreasoned, primarily emotional and self-centered approach, "My personal freedom, yadda, yadda, yadda." These arguments are much like those used by an adolescent when he tries to tell his parents to treat him like an adult without assuming the responsibilities.
Finally, Dr. Friedman's economic argument for legalization is based on a false assumption that government will save or wisely spend the money that would have gone to a wasteful program. Liberal-Marxists argued in the same vein in the 1970s about the space program and the Vietnam War. Did you see an end to poverty or any tax cut (until 1982) when we stopped "wasting money" on those budget items? Eliminating crime by simply making it an non-crime is doublethink at its worst. It also reminds one of a crooked Enron accountant cooking the books by creating phantom profits.
I support that idea.
My main gripe with the laissez-faire, pro-legalization libertarian argument is that it is an unreasoned, primarily emotional and self-centered approach
No, it is a principled approach, your sleazy ad hominems notwithstanding.
Dr. Friedman's economic argument for legalization is based on a false assumption that government will save or wisely spend the money that would have gone to a wasteful program.
Programs don't get more wasteful than those whose only "accomplishment" is imprisoning people who violated nobody's rights. I'd rather see the money go to food stamps or WIC; there are good arguments against them, but at least they put food in a belly instead of a person in prison.
That is utter nonsense. Liberty is not an "emotional and self-centered approach" - it is the core concept for the founding of this country.
Laws based on racism and propaganda are unreasoned.
I find it amazing that you are actually claiming the position of liberty is "unreasoned" and "emotional" - while laws based on lies and pure nonsense are just dandy with you. Give me one reason why marijuana should be illegal that does not apply twice as much toward alcohol and tobacco (you can't).
Your statement is nonsense and unsupported. Clearly you are a reefer madness propaganda parrot that feels they don't even need to present supporting evidence.
We spend BILLIONS to lock up people for a victimless crime and you have presented no evidence that we would not save this money. Milton Friedman is an economic genius so if you plan to attack his statements you better bring more to the table than the Joe Isuzu "You can take my word on it" nonsense.
BTW: the space program never ended and the Vietnam War was wrapped into military spending and military spending did not in any way end. If reefer madness ends, so does the billions we waste on it.