No, under the law, possession is a crime. You don’t have to be high, or doing anything at all with it, just have it. Which means, you are trying to control proliferation of the item, and we can judge the policy by that goal.
Any sort of prohibition, as a policy, has certain conditions it needs to work. It needs to have overwhelming consensus, and the means and knowledge of production needs to be controllable.
Have we achieved this? It doesn’t appear so.
Once again: We Failed to control alcohol, and it was far harder to produce in the 1930s than Marijuana today. So where is the expectation you can enforce this?
> 2. You’re claiming unenforcability as a justification to abandon it; no, all-or-nothing isn’t strawman.
Yes it is. The question isn’t whether you can stop all of it, it’s whether you really control it all.
Once again, Marijuana use grew by over a factor of 10 since the War on Drugs,: It does not respond to enforcement.
Rape and Robbery fell after peaks in the 1970s: it does respond to enforcement.
Most drug charges are framed as preventive measures to keep someone from harming others. Rape & robbery is when someone has already done so. But if drug use was growing all this time, then the enforcement wasn’t preventing much of anything.
It was however, hurting people who otherwise could have been functional members of society, putting them in jail, and turning them into career criminals, many at an early age.
That’s a societal cost, and another condition we can judge the law by.
> By the way, how many rapes fly under the radar, especially when the girl was being pimped from Jr. High age
You’re talking about a limit case, and you haven’t defeated my premise.
Would most people, if they see that, report it? Yes. Would most people if they see a teenager smoke a joint, report that? No. Not unless the kid was smoking in their face.
> 3. Disorder isn’t productive.
Using marijuana as a material to make things is productive.
Using cannabinoid oil to treat epilepsy is productive.
Neither of these actions harm other people, and the strains of marijuana used in it tend to have little or no THC content, so you can’t get high.
So what is your rationale for punishing these people, if they can’t even theoretically harm people, but are being productive?
> The negative effects are known; if the positive outweigh the negative, then seeking to change the law FIRST and THEN indulge is in order. Saying piss on the law for recreational purposes isn’t productive.
> 4. I’m hearing experts saying that the benefits of MJ are NOT settled science;
I just gave a study by the head of an epilepsy research center, who commissioned a study, and proved that it helps people
We would know more, but somebody has been banning research on it for years. Because they like making assumptions they don’t have to justify.
> 5. By the way, RET made an argument for Prohibition having been successful.
I did respond, right after.
As I gave the stats for then, Crime got worse, corruption in among police and politicians got worse, people started drinking at an even younger age, and you had black market empires springing up overnight.
Not to mention deaths from alcohol spiked, as did murders.
These are all societal costs, the flipside effects of the law you have to weigh so as to judge whether the law is preventing evil, or just creating other kinds.
Just like with economic policy, all effects must be considered.