>>The bottom line is that the general public is against it
>
>I think you're advocating tyranny of the masses here, which during the making of our country was identified as a great evil.
>

Haha, so you think our form of government invokes the tyranny of the masses? I've heard congress described in many different terms but . . . .

>The bottom line has to do with quality of life in this country. I respect your opinion that the quality of life is worsened by drug users. Again, on many levels I agree. But for marijuana?
>
>You said your opinion was shaped by your time in law enforcement. For every pot head you saw in the line of duty, there were thousands more sitting in bean bags somewhere talking about music, who would go to sleep, have some groovy dreams, and get up the next morning to lead productive lives that never cross paths with the law.
>

You forgot to say, eat everything in sight.

>Here's something I'm curious about: let's say that its 1776 and we were writing the laws from scratch. Half of your team wanted booze legal, the other half wanted weed legal, but they all agreed that both shouldn't be legal, and both shouldn't be illegal.
>
>You have to pick one.
>
>Which one and why?

I'd probably say legalize both, as a compromise. Then a few years down the road, we'd outlaw grass because of all the hippies running around driving vw microcarriages, and not contributing to society.<g>

Actually your argument ignores the fact that if it were 1776, alcohol would already be legal. If it were legalized, it would only be so for adult white men. It would be unlady-like and certainly kids wouldn't be allowed to participate.