Kaptinemo always has good comments, and got me going with this one
Pete, there’s another dimension to your comment, one that I am sure you’ve thought about from time to time: why has the veracity of the prohib’s blather never, ever been challenged in court? I am not talking about the recent Raich/Monson issues; those are largely a matter of federalism. I am talking about legally challenging the very basis for cannabis prohibition: the information the prohibs state over and over are ‘facts’. I am no lawyer, but it seems to me that if the matter were dragged into a court room, and the prohibs forced to go over every single utterance they have ever made, and were challenged to provide the proofs supporting their beliefs, they too would be ‘laughed out of court’.
You’re right. I’ve thought about it a lot.