You were probably generalizing to get your point across succinctly but to those who assume the above is true: you'd be surprised by how many lawyers, programmers, engineers, technicians etc use it every day to gain a sense of nuance the way a coffee drinker would sink an espresso for a stimulant effect.
It's also worth noting that the Indica strain is the couch-slob strain of marijuana, while Sativa is the head-high. To borrow from a reply I posted a little over a month ago: Your typical sativa high is a sensitivity to music in the way that sounds are broken down spatially, rhythms and bass seem more appealing, an intensity of thoughts - as in the small things now take on more meaning, imagery seems more interesting, colors pop, and it provides a general sense of relaxation as long as you're in a fairly predictable environment, yet you're in total control.
A winning argument if ever I heard one.
Just because there are greater problems in the world doesn't mean we need another.
Well of course it's illegal, that's why they got arrested. It doesn't mean that the legality has any grounds in reason.
I'm anti-tobacco, pro more restrictions on alcohol.
Yearly marijuana overdose deaths: 0
Supporting alcohol use in any form is logically inconsistent with your argument.
You are incorrect in assuming your arguments are conclusive.
> If you heatmap crime...
Again, look at all the problems I had with your original arguments. Alcohol is legal, and hence there is far more opportunity to abuse it. Small, regular amounts of alcohol is likely not be be harmful at all - all problems arise from excess, hence there is an argument for restriction, not criminalization.
Why are you talking about alcohol rather than marijuana in any case? Your comparison is a straw-man - whatever can be concluded about alcohol doesn't necessarily apply to marijuana.
Your assertion was that legalizing cannabis would cause social harm. If your goal is preventing harm then you must also criminalise the currently legal recreational drugs to be logically consistent.
No you don't, did you read what I wrote!
Drug that does objectively less damage = illegal, it is too damaging
You have a right to an opinion, but logic is not open to interpretation.
It is; you are just making up rules and calling them "logic". These are just your arguments, and they are flawed and inconclusive.
Again, read my comments, I'm not interested in your comparisons if you don't even answer to the problems with your own arguments.
Now, I'm glad that this happened. Franky, I was sick of so much attention and focus on something so harmless. There are horrific problems in this world that need to be solved, and some high people drinking Slurpees on a couch watching cartoons shouldn't be the focus of our attention. Plus, the tax on this will bring a lot of revenues into the state.