You're more than welcome to hold your opinions about pot or any other matter but I think we disagree quite a bit on the role of government.
You seem to want it to incentivize this or discourage that, my expectation is for the government to stay the hell out of my life as much as possible, and to let me and everybody else make our own choices. Only when my or others' choices directly damage someone else would I expect government to step in. I highlight "directly" since "indirectly" is the precipice of a 90 degree slope. Someone eating too much is indirectly hurting me by raising the cost of health care and insurance rates. Someone breathing oxygen is indirectly hurting me by taking it away from me... argumentum absurdum to be sure but "indirectly" quickly degrades into justifying the absurd. And that's not speculation given the outlawing of Big Gulps in NY or wherever it was fer cryin' out loud.
I want government to step in when someone endangers me directly by driving under the influence of any ability impairing substance. I want the government to set national standards so an ounce in Oregon weighs the same as an ounce in Florida, inadvertent drug reference notwithstanding.
But directing me to lead a better life? Better according to who?
Organize the national defense, regulate interstate commerce so one state doesn't impose border tariffs on another and a few other things. But keep the moralizing out of it.
Every government that ever tried to impose morality on its citizens has failed in the attempt and only made whatever situation they were trying to cure far worse.
Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery. Hit the target, all else is twaddle!
