Reagarding the legalization, I'm not against anyone using drugs or alcohol as long as their use doesn't adversely affect others. The "your right to swing your fist stops at the beginning of my nose" argument. Nobody has the right to any activity that is going to cause great harm to the general population. The proponents of drug legalization (at least marijuana) make the point that it's not as bad or worse than alcohol. We know the harmful effects of misuse of alcohol. We don't know that, long term effect, about marijuana on the health of the general population.
Like I said, in five years we'll know better. Then if it turns out legalizing marijuana is as bad or cause harm similar to alcohol, the American people will have to make a decision. Can you morally ban something that's not worse than or as bad as another substance? Even if all the naysayers prove to be right about the bad effects of weed, how can you ban it when you know alcohol has been so destructive? I'd say marijuana would have to be proven more destructive to general society before we could ban it.
Then if it turns out legalizing marijuana is as bad or cause harm similar to alcohol, the American people will have to make a decision. Can you morally ban something that's not worse than or as bad as another substance? Even if all the naysayers prove to be right about the bad effects of weed, how can you ban it when you know alcohol has been so destructive?
One evil thing does not justify the creation of another evil thing. One piece of bad, does not make another piece of bad acceptable.