>>7799751Saying "Dunning Kruger" doesn't lend any credence to your arguments. I would wager your opposition to the substances have a political theme. While there's nothing wrong with that, I think you could afford to be more realistic about it. Countries who have decriminalized substances like LSD or marijuana tend to have short-term spikes in usage followed by a decline that tends to ultimately result in a usage level that resembles the levels before decriminalization (or outright legalization). It becomes a bit of a fad then dies down. People who want to do LSD usually aren't very shaken by the legality of it. In my subjective view on freedom, I believe people should have the right to poison themselves however they like. At any rate, people are more controlled by sugar than any other substance at the moment, and I see little effort to abate this. Additionally, opposition to weed is overwhelmingly funded by the pharmaceuticals industry--one of the wealthiest sectors of the economy. It would be a terror for them if people stopped buying their anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, and other medications because they've found something else to calm them down for a while. Surely, these medications are more guilty of pacifying a populace than weed. In fact, citizens are far more approving of marijuana than the government anyway. Despite the majority of Americans being in favor of legalization, even Democrat politicians are split on it--the pharmaceuticals bribes are far more appealing to them than the will of the people. If they wanted to legalize it, they could've done it at practically any time. They have full control of Congress and the White House. There is no play by the government here, only self-interest among greedy politicians.
