Replies

For example if we had a communist power develop a drug that would make our citizens lazy and unproductive then nobody would argue that we should allow this power to freely distribute this drug in the United States.

There's a difference between allowing a drug to be prescribed, and "freely distributed". The only reason that states that allow medical marijuana have created a separate distribution channel is because federal law makes it impossible to use existing pharmacies to handle it without incurring un-insurable liabilities/criminal penalties. CVS, Rite-Aid, Longs, etc... are not going to want to handle a product that allows the federal government to seize the entire corporation.

I knew stoners in college, and a lot of them were unambitious (not the same as lazy, they actually had to work harder because they often didn't work smarter). I'd take every single one of them as an employee over someone who has to stay on opiates or soma to relieve pain. Those individuals are completely unable to focus their brain on any but the most simple tasks, and often can barely stay awake.

I agree that there will be widespread abuse of medical marijuana until federal law carves out an exception and it starts falling under the same regulations as other schedule II drugs. If one were to embrace least harm principles, Heroin should also be dropped to schedule II, and Methadone bumped up to schedule I.

I think that protecting people with poor impulse control from self-abuse at the expense of the pain and suffering of the ill is sickeningly immoral. I also think that trying to protect those with poor impulse control from self-abuse with legislation is the kind of magical thinking that I normally only associate with the worst liberal policies.