> This is why the "health benefits" arguments for legalization of drugs are generally a bad route to take. It would be far more fruitful to argue for legalizati

> This is why the "health benefits" arguments for legalization of drugs are generally a bad route to take. It would be far more fruitful to argue for legalization based on individual responsibility, personal choice, and related themes. There's the second-order phenomenon sometimes called the "iron law of prohibition" at work as well -- legal regimes of prohibition tend to incentivize optimizing potency per unit volume above everything else (including safety). Since THC is the chemical in marijuana that, to first approximation, gets you high; prohibition (through that "iron law") has engineered a prevalence of high-THC marijuana strains. These strains tend have lower amounts of other, less/non-psychoactive cannabinoids such as CBD. Notably, there is research showing that CBD has anti-psychotic properties, which likely counteract the deleterious effects of THC that are mentioned in the article. For the record, I'm not a marijuana user (the smell alone disgusts me), I don't subscribe to the "weed is a harmless drug"/"weed is good for you" meme-theories, and I don't wish to promote irresponsible drug use -- I'm just pointing out that the set of incentives that prohibition creates are very strongly responsible for making drug use needlessly dangerous (for users and society at large alike). It's not about the health benefits of the drugs, it's about the health benefits (or the lack thereof) of prohibiting the drugs. And yes, prohibition is definitely still the law of the land, regardless of state/local-level "legalization" initiatives that withhold punishment for small "personal use" amounts or the like. People _still get_ searched/arrested/convicted/jailed for marijuana-related crimes, and as long as that is the case, the "iron law of prohibition" will keep doing its hideous work.