How is it not controversial? Most studies seem to suggest the effect is not known.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337025/

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827335/

Definitely seems to suggest there are potentially harmful side effects.

look at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337025/table/T... those studies are basically jokes.

ever take tylenol? the pain killer that is available OTC virtually everywhere? do you know what happens if you take double the max recommended dosage? liver failure. for something that's OTC.

for all intents and purposes weed is harmless. In WA, most people that I know have tried weed and some of them are actually doing it on a regular basis. I have yet to hear of any [mental] health issues.

If you do something all day everyday you are dealing with something else and the drug is a way of escapism.

Again, the argument that because bad x exists and is allowed freely does not mean y should be allowed. You can not use transitive arguments for this. I would think that pain killer should also be restricted. Anecdotal small sample sizes are also not convincing either way, I do not think we should be so cavalier with allowing or disallowing.

my point is that everything should be allowed and the decision should be at a personal level. that’s freedom! literally the definition of freedom. you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t restrict others freedom

I respectfully disagree, society does not function like that. We need constraints. It might not restrict others freedoms entirely, but there are still consequences for actions, things do not happen in a vacuum.

Things indeed do not happen in a vacuum. Each situation is heavily influenced by the complicated and nuanced circumstances surrounding it.

Do you think a few hundred people in the central government should decide how to handle those situations, or the people most intimately familiar with the details?