[dirtboy]

I still find it interesting that the pro pot crowd here is so unwilling to accept or employ standard conservative/libertarian argument that notes the safety of the substance should generally be irrelevant to our right to consume same.

I, for one, have never claimed that pot is beneficial, except perhaps in a very limited use with AIDS and chemotherapy patients. I instead compare the harm that pot causes individuals and society, compare that to the harm and taxpayer expense that prohibiting pot causes, and come to the conclusion that the enforcement efforts against pot simply are not justifiable. Pot to me is fairly similar to alcohol in that both are widely used on a recreational basis, both can cause some impairment, and a small percentage of users develop dependency problems, but pot is banned and booze isn't. That's stupid. Best to have the states try different approaches towards pot to see what works best, and get the feds out of the picture.

[sweet_diane]

"I instead compare the harm that pot causes individuals and society, compare that to the harm and taxpayer expense that prohibiting pot causes, and come to the conclusion that the enforcement efforts against pot simply are not justifiable. Pot to me is fairly similar to alcohol in that both are widely used on a recreational basis, both can cause some impairment, and a small percentage of users develop dependency problems, but pot is banned and booze isn't. That's stupid. Best to have the states try different approaches towards pot to see what works best, and get the feds out of the picture."

Makes sense to me! And I am NOT a Libertarian or a libertairan (I really don't know what difference the L/l makes, I know it's really important to some of you).