Do you seriously think anything counts, on the Internet? Do you intend to win some prize? When it comes to forming opinions, one's own experience absolutely does count. I even take into consideration the experience of others, weighted variously based on how reliable I think it might be.

I think first principles count for a lot, even though they often haven't been studied. That's not directly relevant, as I'm citing experience, not making a mathematical proof. I bring it up to point out that over-reliance on studies, which are quite often ill-posed or not-entirely-satisfactory in their execution, is not a good way to come to an opinion. Neither is being anything other than ruthlessly vigilant with your statements when you're arguing for a position you feel passionately about.

For my part, though I liked smoking weed, and might do it if my job didn't require a sharp edge (the same applies to alcohol), I'm not especially passionate about doing it or not. I care a lot more about civil liberties, of which "the right to ingest chemicals for fun" is a subset. I care about it so much that I dispute with people who make weak arguments in the hope they'll spend some time making them stronger, so they can be more successfully persuasive.

That's leverage.. other people making smart arguments so I can sit around and eat chocolates.

I went back through the thread just to be sure.. what letters are you talking about? I can't find a single one (much less "all these") letter directly claiming marijuana ought to be illegal. If you insist on counting Zorkna, which is stupid, because no one else does, you might have one that vaguely qualifies.

I did see one on the first claiming it *is* illegal, which is fair. Since it is.

Hey, maybe I missed one or two. They sure as hell aren't the consensus. Nor I think is the consensus of the country that pot ought to be illegal.

@others:

One point I never addressed was this fallacious notion that because super duper smart people blaze up, pot doesn't make you dumber. They might have been super duper duperer smart if they hadn't. I'm not making any counterclaim, just saying that the endless examples of geniuses getting high imply absolutely zippo.

Don't hold your breath waiting for all that, especially the "ever again" bit. People don't have long memories when it comes to group stupidity.

Credit where credit is due. For good or ill, we make the best volume weapons in the world. You'll occasionally find a better product being produced in small lots, but one reason everyone buys our stuff is that it works.

I make absolutely no claim about whether that's a good thing.

Uh, booze is the Chinese and Japanese "Men's" drug, and the Native American (pick your favorite continent) "Men's" drug, and the recently banned Middle Eastern "Men's" drug.. etc. Pretty much anything human beings can use to get high is a part of whatever culture it's commonly found in. Ethanol is so easy to produce it's found everywhere, even in cultures where it's banned by religion and penalties for imbibing are severe.

Likewise, efforts to stamp out marijuana, cocaine and every other drug are obviously doomed to failure for reasons you, I, and lots of other people recognize. Please don't pollute your arguments with first year ethnic studies pap. You had a fine thing going with the industrial hemp line.

Presuming that because I claimed marijuana makes people dumber, I don't claim drinking makes people dumber just makes you look like a troll. Of course, you are kind of a troll. But since you occasionally make sense, I'll respond.

I don't make any claim about whether or not people continue to be able to get high scores on standardized tests when they habitually consume marijuana. Nor do I claim there are long term effects. I've done no study. I do claim to have seen people around me process, whatever that means, slower than when they had not yet begun to use the drug regularly.

When my claims are so limited and you immediately project them far beyond what I wrote, you look like a damn idiot. Stop that.

You make a critically important point: the best government possible ought to be the one that enfranchises everyone (maybe everyone who participates, that's debatable). I argue that representative democracy is so unstable and tends to quickly degenerate into the kind of situation we have now, where the successful influencers and money makers end up with all the power. Those people then proceed to rig the system in their favor, and control opinion through the media. It's not an especially novel observation, I admit.

So what do you do to enfranchise everyone if checks and balances don't work? If you assume that any system you imagine will come to a time when the populace at large is too satisfied or cowardly to resist when the system is blantantly warped into a restricted oligarchy such as we have now?

I've been wrestling with it for twenty years, and have no plan I can recommend. And, obviously, lots of people have been thinking about this since before the Republic was written.

Preach on, Brother Mudcat.

Responding to trolls (shooter) is a great way to get them to continue their keyboard vomit. Just say no.

blockquote got screwed up, and I didn't preview. <-naughty.