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.
Excellent post. I know I shouldn't be, but I keep being surprised at how many people want more government controls in their lives. Actually that's perhaps not entirely accurate; they want more government control of others people's lives, particularly those doing things they don't like. In this they remind me very much of modern day SJW's and liberals. They somehow feel that they have the right not to be exposed to anything they don't like or find annoying, and denying people their freedoms is fine if those freedoms annoy you. These are the people we call "snowflakes", because they are oh so special and must not be exposed to anything they don't like, lest they throw a hissy fit.
I don't use drugs or even alcohol simply because I don't enjoy their effects. However I've worked with and known plenty of people who do. Some were great, responsible people and others were hardly worth the oxygen they used. I've also worked with and known lots of people who use neither drugs nor alcohol. Guess what, some where great, responsible people and others where complete turds. In fact, the two young kids who I work with now both smoke pot on a daily basis, but not till after work. Both of them are in every way superior workers and people to the two other older guys there who don't smoke pot. Why isn't it making them lazy, stupid criminals? I've worked with people for years before I found out they liked to smoke a little pot, and had no idea. If they want to do that, and can remain functional and productive people, what business is it of mine or the governments?
I don't really care if people are stupid, until they get to the point of being dangerously stupid. We have a couple dangerously stupid people here. When someone advocates the governmental right to punish or even kill someone for something as minor as smoking a little pot, that's a dangerous stupidity. People like that are far more dangerous to society than potheads could ever be.
