Can I ask where you're from? I'm just curious about worldview based on geographic factors and how that might influence perspective. > I would argue that a lot

Can I ask where you're from? I'm just curious about worldview based on geographic factors and how that might influence perspective. > I would argue that a lot of the harm comes from a substance a) being addictive, and b) being significantly unhealthy. To the point where the net harm probably outweighs the net benefit. I think it's important to point out that cannabis is a plant, and has a drastically different risk profile than alcohol. You keep grouping the two as if they're similar, but they're not. I say this as someone who has clearly experienced the downsides, but who still doesn't think banning it makes any sense, especially if there are criminal penalties involved. Historically, the bans have been predicated on lies, and associating it with harder drugs that are a clear and obvious danger to public health. The issue I have with your argument is that it presupposes that these are plants to be legalized (vs. legal by default). The burden of proof should lie on why we think they are harmful, and why they shouldn't be legal by default, IMO. And when looked at through that lens, existing policies have clearly not been aligned with reality. I'd support common sense regulations and requirements around public education, maybe even limits on strength. But there's a wide spectrum of possibility between banning something and making sure that people use it safely. If we want to focus on banning substances that are addictive and a net harm to society, there is a lot more low hanging fruit across the food industry. Let's start with sugar.