[JimRed]

Then any legalization law should specify that no public resources will be spent dealing with the consequences of said law. Is that fair enough?

[NobleFree]

there's no reason to expect an increase [in users toking themselves into befuddled unemployability] with legalization, because the new smokers are people responsible enough not to have smoked when it was illegal.

Then any legalization law should specify that no public resources will be spent dealing with the consequences of said law. Is that fair enough?

I'm fine with the law saying that - and making it retroactive to alcohol and tobacco users too. But since it's a moot point, the absence of such a clause shouldn't stop legalization from passing.

[Drew68]

Then any legalization law should specify that no public resources will be spent dealing with the consequences of said law. Is that fair enough?

Let any legalization law be whatever the voters choose it to be.

How about this for a change?