Many call it de facto legalization, because medical marijuana ID cards are laughably easy to get. While California’s experience shows the downsides of ineffectual laws and lax enforcement, it has not turned the state into a story of rampant addiction, crime or community upheaval. Support for full legalization there has grown as dire predictions of disaster, made over two decades, have not been borne out.
It's possible that cannabis has a causative connection to some psychotic illnesses. It seems reasonable that cannabis can trigger underlying illness, or exacerbate existing illness. So while I am strongly in favour of legalising drugs I am still concerned about possible harms from cannabis.
Researching this is difficult. Partly because cannabis is illegal and thus recruiting subjects is fraught with ethical difficulties, but also because we need very many years to research. EDIT: 1996 isn't even 20 years ago.
Agreed. I'm sure there will be some problems from legal marijuana, though I don't see any sign they'll be nearly as bad as the problems caused by prohibition. In the case of other drugs which we might consider legalizing eventually, this might be more debatable.
> 1996 isn't even 20 years ago.
It's within 10% of 20 years ago, and anyway, it's a lot more than seven months ago. Not sure what your point is here.
However, based on years of legal alcohol use by the public, I'd disagree.
Besides the health and freedom issues, your opinion sounds like it's biased.
Because you don't need to be a scientist to know that the current laws are flawed through and through and that the only good thing about them is that if you own a private prison you're going to make a lot of money.
What data?
Nice job trying to elevate his opinion to a fact... you must agree with his biased opinion. As do everyone who has down-voted me.
It's not a right, it's a matter of statistical significance. People who measure certainty actually care.