If you put aside the alleged "medical" benefits, which only a few would need (if at all), what is the POSITIVE AFFIRMATIVE argument FOR legalizing pot?
If you put aside the alleged medical benefits of aspirin, what is the positive affirmative argument for legalizing it??
As CBW said, same with fried chicken and cars. Heck what is the positive affirmative argument for owning a gun??
Don't tell me it will do no harm (that's stupid) and don't tell me it will reduce crime (also stupid) what is the POSTIVE reason to add it to society as a legal drug? What independent benefit does it bring?
Give it your best shot. State the case for legal marijuana, other than the same recycled arguments I discussed above.
Because this is THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, a country founded on the ideas of liberty and freedom of choice. The county was founded and the Constitution written with the over lying principle that EVERYTHING should be legal UNLESS it is found to be harmful to others or the nation.
AMENDMENT IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It is well recognized that the purpose of any statute, law, or ordinance, Federal, state or local should fall into one of 3 categories:
1. to generate revenue or allocate spending
2. to protect individuals or the citizenry as a whole from physical or financial harm or loss.
3. to regulate commerce so as to encourage free, open and safe markets.
So does keeping MJ illegal generate revenue- NO
Does it protect individuals or the citizenry from physical or financial harm- NO
Does keeping it illegal encourage free, safe and open commerce?---HELL NO
So there is no reason to keep an ineffectual law on the books and in fact, it is our duty as Americans to force the repeal of ineffectual and onerous laws.
In the America our Founding Fathers envisioned, it is not necessary to justify why something should be legal, but the burden of justification is on those that wish something banned to prove why it should be banned.