Our guidline for what is legal and what is not should be whether something harms another, and not the emotional aspect of the act. Driving stoned should be illegal, just as driving under the influence of alcohol is. Driving under the influence of distraction of reading, putting on makeup, eating a super-size, disciplining children, or talking on cell phones should also, because they endanger others.

Smoking pot, while it may cause collateral suffering in those who care about the smoker is not an action that demands a legal sanction. Operating the remote control stoned, ordering two pizzas for everyone in the room, or laughing insanely at something that is most definitely not funny are not examples of things society needs to be protected from.

Laws against pot have proven to be ineffectual and more support for the organized crime infrastructure than they have been at actually stopping pot smoking. How does society benefit from those laws? Is someone with a pot "problem" better off facing jail time *in addition* to having a substnance problem? Why can't society strike a balance and accept that people sometimes like to be intoxicated, that it is enjoyable, and that most of its members can imbibe ocassionally without the social fabric coming apart? I think it is less economic, although it IS that, than it is puritanical, although it is hard to understand in that regard how booze is legal. And don't forget, either that many sexual acts that involve neither minors nor coerced participants are also illegal.

The arguments against legalization here have all been emotional, not a good foundation for laws.