very good...drug prohibition makes as much sense as alcohol prohibition made in the early 20th century...none...

I wouldn't prohibit the sale of any of them. However, users, not the state, must take responsibility for their actions.

Freedom = Responsibility. True every time, regardless of other's dogma-tribes.

Marijuana is the one drug that carries the least effect on impaired function, and is not as addictive as nicotine. However, where it's decriminalized, the cartels have an opportunity to offer a cheaper product, since they don't need no stinkin' licenses. Colorado and Washington state are noticing an increase in cartel activity. There's also the illegal private growers, who are having an environmental impact (weed is a very thirsty plant, and needs much herbicidal help). As a result of illegal activity, the tax benefits are lower than predicted, and the law enforcement costs have risen, negating the reduced cost of decriminalizing possession.

Marijuana is now more available to teenagers, and schools are reporting more issues with neglected studies and lack of attention in class that coincides with the legalization of recreational marijuana. There's also been an increase in toxic medical issues with toddlers and pets who get into consumable marijuana products. These are just some social issues that should be of concern, as they have effects beyond the casual adult user.

Because legal weed is still pretty expensive, cartels have begun "graduating" recreational users to heroin, as a cheaper product. Heroin use has risen significantly where recreational marijuana has been decriminalized as a result.

Methamphetamine is a very dangerous drug, almost always instantly addictive, and a toxic product that affects health seriously. Meth should never be decriminalized. Cocaine, in a controlled environment, actually can be beneficial to some health conditions, but should be legalized only as a medical treatment.

LSD is dangerous to mental health, as are a variety of psychogenic herbs. Some metropolitan governments are experimenting with decriminalizing natural psychogenics, which I think is a serious mistake.

If I choose to drive at 200 mph on the freeway, why should the government restrict my freedom? Because of the danger I present to others, we've agreed that such behavior should be restricted. The same should apply to any who choose to use drugs.

If I want to own an Abrams tank, and drive it and fire its weapons in a responsible manner, why should the government forbid me to own such a weapon? That's a little more difficult to answer, because if I can prove I'm being very careful not to endanger others, it becomes a discriminatory restriction because I present a challenge to government power and control.

Because the frog will jump out of the water and vote someone else in.

We have some restaurants in our county that you can refill your plate ad infinitum. You ought to see the plates of some of our oil field workers! Wowie, can those guys eat! However, they work it off! But some of our restaurants who serve very fattening food, put too much on the plate and you can sit there and watch people come in who weigh at least 300 pounds. It is scarey! But there is a reason for it. The cost is minimal and the people can't afford the dainty foods that don't get you fat! They eat what they think they need.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness AND TO BE STUPID.
Is it smart to drink 10 cans of soda a day, eat 5000c a day, smoke 2 packs, drink a 1/5 before lunch, drive a giant SUV alone , bla bla bla, hell no.
"Objectively" it makes no sense as many of you have opined very logically and if this was a high school poli si class I would commend you all or your comments BUT we are the sharp end of the spear on personal freedoms RIGHT.
Your actions or moralistic opinions are not the issue, I have the right to be dumb until it causes others to be harmed or pay for my actions.
If I drive drunk or while eating a cheese burger I should pay the price but I should be able to buy a bottle or a burger or whatever , the onus is on me. If you don't get that you are on the wrong forum.

Problem is...I keep reading where daily, long time, use of pot has been definitely linked to a variety of mental issues. Large numbers of mental hospital patients have histories of long term marijuana use.

That's enough proof for me to want it to remain a "controlled substance".

Why indeed?!

With that platform, you would rocket to the top of the democrat presidential candidates club, all of whom say "prohibit" when they mean "tax". - or were you just reciting current law in NY?

The more we control, the more we become controlled by big gov. However, I have seen drug impaired drivers weaving on the road, and it is scary if you are near. I have worked with drug impaired co-workers at a newspaper, who nearly missed deadlines. So, they end up killing someone, or they get fired. There has to be a better way to get people to rely on themselves, not substances. I do not like the idea of mayors deciding what you may drink, to save th planet, absurd. If people want to kill themselves without physical harm to others, so be it. My mom was an alcoholic who died at 46, by then also addicted to pills. She had no desire to change, to the end. That is life and death.

You are missing out on the principle involved: does it impair one's ability to reason? If it does not and is simply a personal preference, the government has no authority or reasonable interest in regulating it. If it does impair one's reasoning faculties, however, then what one does while under the influence of such chemicals has an effect on that individual's interactions with other people - i.e. it becomes a societal matter at that point.

On the radio a month or so ago, the host invited on a couple of individuals arguing in favor of recreational and medical marijuana use (which currently is illegal in my state but legal in several nearby states). One of the arguments given by a proponent was that his father suffered from chronic pain and marijuana use could be beneficial for that type of situation. Now unfortunately, I wasn't in a position to call in and point out that what he was actually arguing for there was medical marijuana use - not recreational use. The other thing I wanted to point out was that his argument was an appeal to emotion far more than a valid logical argument.

Why? Because the counter-argument was from just a few months ago where someone high on marijuana killed four other people via an automobile accident in a nearby community. It was purely recreational use and had traumatic and irreversible consequences.

I think a case can be made for the controlled and supervised medicinal use of certain compounds. The recreational uses for me are a much tougher sell because their primary objective is illusory - not reality.