The problem is that the underlying logic for all arguments that apply to criminalization of marijuana/psychedelics would also apply to the criminalization of al

The problem is that the underlying logic for all arguments that apply to criminalization of marijuana/psychedelics would also apply to the criminalization of alcohol, cigarettes, riding motorcycles, and so on. So either you believe alcohol should be made illegal again etc., or you believe marijuana should be legal - but there is no logical consistency to a "middle of the road" approach. Also the blog post you linked to has links to interesting studies, but it's a bit hard to take seriously when it holds gems of stupidity such as: "Those 400,000 teens would lose 8 IQ points each. IQ increases your yearly earnings by about $500 per point, so these people would lose about $4,000 a year. Making very strong assumptions about salary being a measure of value to society, society would lose about $1.6 billion a year directly, plus various intangibles from potential artists and scientists losing the ability to create masterpieces and inventions, plus various really intangibles like a slightly dumber electorate." I also heavily disagree with your premise: "There are very few policy arguments in the modern world where there is literally no rational argument on one side" I do believe that the media and various partisans groups are very skilled at spinning stories in such a way that it seems that all sides on an issue have their good points, but in retrospect it is often obvious how barbaric and misguided certain sides of the debate were. Examples: death penalty, women's right to vote, black people's right to vote, gay right to marry, etc. There is no doubt when I say that none of the arguments against women's right to vote, or for the death penalty, are consistent, rational, or logical in anyway. They ultimately all stem from FUD. So what current debates will be seen the same way 50 years from now? 100 years from now?