[ansel12]

So by "the law doesn’t get written until the problem arises" you meant the law against action X doesn’t get written until action X has been observed to take place?

75 years or so a law was passed because a problem was growing among American youth, it was reaching into the mainstream youth and it finally had to be addressed, I don't know why you phrased it that way, as though it had merely been suddenly "observed".

I don't know that homosexual marriage was legal before it is made illegal.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

So by "the law doesn’t get written until the problem arises" you meant the law against action X doesn’t get written until action X has been observed to take place?

Probably true in most cases - but how does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that?

75 years or so a law was passed because a problem was growing among American youth, it was reaching into the mainstream youth and it finally had to be addressed,

If you're referring to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, it's very much open to debate that there was in fact a "problem" rather than simply Reefer Madness hysteria. We can agree that marijuana was in fact being used and was known to be in use.

You still haven't answered the most important question: How does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that?

I don't know why you phrased it that way, as though it had merely been suddenly "observed".

I meant simply that for activity X to be known to be a problem, it must first be known to be taking place.

Any action is legal before a law against it is passed.

I don't know that homosexual marriage was legal before it is made illegal.

Bad example - civil marriage is an act of government, and as such no kind of civil marriage (homosexual, polygamous, whatever) is legal unless and until government says so. The use of marijuana, which was/is an act of individuals rather than government, certainly was legal until government said otherwise.