[fwdude]

I hope this fails. I can't even believe the idea is being floated in Kentucky, of all places.

Always, always, regulation of a recreational drug requires many times more onerous laws than an outright ban. Allowances for some use in specified ways invariably exposes children to the drug many times more than before a ban is lifted. Bureaucracies necessarily proliferate, leading to much more government and taxpayer expense that it involves.

Dopers like to tout "freedom," but what results is its antithesis. A complete, restriction-less allowance would be better, but children would be at a horrific risk, then.

[ConservingFreedom]

Always, always, regulation of a recreational drug requires many times more onerous laws than an outright ban.

Have nay evidence for your claim?

Allowances for some use in specified ways invariably exposes children to the drug many times more than before a ban is lifted.

Kids have been reporting for years that they can get illegal-for-everybody pot more easily than legal-for-adults-only beer or cigarettes (http://www.casacolumbia.org/download/file/fid/640).

[Wolfie]

Yeah, because jail and a criminal record is so much better.

[bassmaner]

A complete, restriction-less allowance would be better, but children would be at a horrific risk, then.

The 'for the children' excuse for statism. How 'bout the PARENTS play a more active role, and government a less active role? It's a much more Constitutional state of affairs.