This conversation keeps going no where because you keep making these straw man stances. I think smoking weed is bad and people shouldn't do it. WTF are you talking about honest people getting murdered in mexico. If you want to talk about people being murder in mexico maybe you bring your attention to real issues like "The issue that has not been addressed in the last few years is the continued flow of U.S. arms to Mexico and the ease with which you can buy firearms in the U.S. that are fueling violence in Mexico". Where do I blame government for making cannabis illegal. You completely ignored the fact that "We conclude that prohibition is not only ineffective, but counterproductive, at achieving the goals of policymakers both domestically and abroad. Given the insights from economics and the available data, we find that the domestic War on Drugs has contributed to an increase in drug overdoses and fostered and sustained the creation of powerful drug cartels". For why war on drugs was a failure, but you say it's because it non strict enough. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/four-decades-counting-continued-failure-war-drugs If the logic "that the difficulty or expense in enforcing something or the fact that it is 'widespread' are not moral reasons to shrug one's shoulders and give up" holds true, then it is also true that it is not immoral to change your approach for a better chance of solving real problems when war on a drugs has shown to be a failure to accomplish any of their objectives. And you ignore the facts where I talk about how families are affected during war on drugs, you only talk about expenses because that's the only thing that might support your not moral argument, but when you focus on how it negatively affect peoples because of war on drugs, it actually becomes more of an immoral thing to not legalize weed when there is an alternative approach, because you are fucking over so many lives. But even then, your moral argument is on the basis that because something is not moral, we shouldn't do it, which I would like to point out, that just because something is not moral, doesn't make it immoral, but possibly amoral. But if you are trying say legalizing weed is immoral, then please explain how. Your logic and reasoning is flawed. It just caters to your own self interest rather than logic and reason. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't instantly make them immoral, please get off your high horse. And in your article RIGHT BEFORE YOUR QUOTE it says "Since then, the DEA has only issued a single license for the cultivation of marijuana for research, to the University of Mississippi, which is funded through a NIDA contract." A single license. I never said it was impossible, but rather difficult for many researchers. Which the fact that they only gave one license supports my argument. And I understand it's hard for you to read between the lines, but besides the paperwork canada has to go through which "Researchers who want to access marijuana for experiments must apply for a special exemption from Health Canada for each individual compound from the plant they hope to study, of which there are hundreds — including those that have no known intoxicating effects, like CBD" which isn't a trivialized process you make it sound to be. "If approved, they must navigate the opaque and expensive world of acquiring these compounds. And even though legalization seems certain to boost what is already one of the world’s highest national marijuana usage rates, scientists say there is not enough funding to study how the drug impacts health, behaviour and the brain" which means that they need money to also do this research because of how expensive illegal and controlled substances are, not even considering the process which they need to go through to acquire the substances. (and they also have to be consistent so that they can make conclusive evidence. Which all becomes easier when it's legal. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/ CONCLUSION 15-1 There are specific regulatory barriers, including the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance, that impede the advancement of cannabis and cannabinoid research.15 CONCLUSION 15-2 It is often difficult for researchers to gain access to the quantity, quality, and type of cannabis product necessary to address specific research questions on the health effects of cannabis use. CONCLUSION 15-3 A diverse network of funders is needed to support cannabis and cannabinoid research that explores the harmful and beneficial health effects of cannabis use. But yeah, it's just simple paperwork herp derp. In what delusional world do you live in for you to think that people will support a policy where any drug use means you will be executed. Please tell me if you live in the same american society I live in. Because it's not a realistic thing that would happen. How is that going to go through congress/parliament. And I'm gonna humor you here, because it's true, strict enforcement for street possession will clean up streets. Look at the Philippines, they just started killing off people and drugs are less of a problem. But then there's the civil unrest, the question of ethics and morality. But yeah completely applicable approach for democratic society. Yeah cause killing people is the moral way for us to solve our problems. How do you suggest we create this strict enforcement culture you so wish to see. I can agree with you there, but I don't see how it is possible for this enforcement to be accepted. How would this be implemented and are you really suggesting people be executed for small use of drugs. The problem with this argument is the moral implications. Some people are drug addicts, like porn addicts, are you suggesting they be executed for something they can't help but do. I feel you like you live detached from reality.