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.
That was a stoner’s post.
Even Western Civilization has known about the use of marijuana “taking place” for thousands of years, we just didn’t indulge, and we condemned it. Fringes and dregs of Western culture have been indulging in such drugs since ancient times, it just never entered the mainstream until recently.
As far as homosexual “marriage”, in America we have had both religious, and civil marriage for centuries, we never needed to address making laws against this homosexual agenda, until recently.