[presidio9]

Of course it is - just like opposition to alcohol Prohibition was a conservative idea. Drug criminalization, like Prohibition before it, is "progressive" social engineering that has succeeded only in enriching criminals.

Prohibition is irrelevant to your argument, because alcohol and pot are not the same thing, and never will be. For example, while plenty of people enjoy a glass or two of wine with a meal, the only reason anybody ever smoked pot was to get stoned. Period.

[energized]

What does that have to do with rolling government back to its proper role (defense against enemies foreign and domestic, maintenance of rule of law within which disputes can be peaceably resolved)?

[jmc813]

For example, while plenty of people enjoy a glass or two of wine with a meal, the only reason anybody ever smoked pot was to get stoned. Period.

You must be a blast at parties.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Of course it is - just like opposition to alcohol Prohibition was a conservative idea. Drug criminalization, like Prohibition before it, is "progressive" social engineering that has succeeded only in enriching criminals.

Prohibition is irrelevant to your argument, because alcohol and pot are not the same thing,

That they are not the same thing is what's irrelevant. They are both addictive mind-altering substances (but alcohol is more addictive, and the only one that can directly kill you).

and never will be. For example, while plenty of people enjoy a glass or two of wine with a meal, the only reason anybody ever smoked pot was to get stoned. Period.

Some claim to drink only for the flavor - and some of those are probably telling the truth, while others enjoy the mild buzz they euphemize as "relaxing" or "unwinding." At least a sizeable minority of drinkers seek the mental effects; so even if that percentage is less than 100%, the difference is too thin a reed to support the complete banning of one versus the regulated legality of the other.