This is an amazing meta-point here; the people on the other side of this debate seem to have no need for logical cohesion. I might extend that a bit to ask 'wh

This is an amazing meta-point here; the people on the other side of this debate seem to have no need for logical cohesion. I might extend that a bit to ask 'what is the consequence of such lack of cohesion'? Perhaps first that getting agreement on anything needs to be done at a close to case-by-case basis since there is a weaker adherence to standards. This can introduce favoritism (e.g. some people get hit for pot and others don't). Another consequence might be up-front costs. Not needing to think too deep about edge cases and whatnot is clearly less time-cost to run first-time-seen cases. This in turn means people won't hesitate as much in setting new precedence because they won't notice when they do. Another consequence would be inability to get consistency across and entire system since not everything can be debated by all and there's not clear rules.