Yeah, that's what I always thought too. It is not sane to outlaw a plant which is part of nature, and whether one uses that plant privately is one's one business. It is sane to regulate the public sales of that plant, however, if it's a mind-altering one.

I remain convinced that the primary reason pot is a social problem is that there is a lot of money to be made selling it. This happens in one of 2 cases: 1. when it's illegal 2. when it's legal to mass market it.

Remove the money angle, and you have removed virtually the entire impetus driving people to aggressively push the drug...they do it for profit, not because they feel a sacred duty to get people high and give them a good time.

The only people left growing pot under the laws I propose would be a few quiet, harmless characters like Bobert, growing and smoking their own. In my opinion. I may be wrong. Only trying such a legal approach will ever prove if I am.

I don't think rebellious young people would be much interested in pot anymore if it was legal, as a matter of fact.

However, here's my prediction. It will either remain as it presently is, illegal....or it will be made legal AND marketed...and that will cause a lot more people to use it, because marketing has one objective in mind...SELL MORE PRODUCT BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE, AND WHO CARES WHO GETS HURT BY IT?

That's the ugly fact of the matter. I would rather see it remain totally illegal than see the politicians give private industry another way to hook people.

Why does everyone think in all-or-nothing terms when discussing such matters? Why?