Robbie,

the costs to grow and distribute if free from having to operate as outlaws would be incredibly low. i imagine even the govt could turn a profit :-)

the argument that it's any worse than alcohol or nicotine are spurious at best.

and, in fact, i would go a step further and say that the *physically* addictive properties of thc are lower than alcohol OR nicotine. so, people get addicted psychologically -- so what, they get addicted psychologically to lots of things that are legal -- shopping, video games, porn, the internet, etc. that said, i'm not an m.d. and don't purport to be an expert on the subject of addiction.

as it turns out, the biggest problem, apparently, with growing the female plant with the intent of getting 'high' is the male plants fertilizing the female and making them go to seed.

since the male plant is very aggressive with its pollen dissemination (i hear) the people trying to grow the plant to get high would have a massive problem, but for, the 'government' going out of its way to make it difficult to raise hemp plants for other legitimate purposes.

..unintended consequences of trying to control the uncontrollable...

oh, and on that note, you raise perhaps two much more interesting point in the grander scheme of things in your post. and that is,

what are the rights of the federal government to rule over the states? and

what responsibility does the collective have to support the individual who is unwilling or unable to work?

i would argue quite a bit less than the majority in the US apparently currently assert.

there has been a dangerous, in my opinion, aggregation of power over many many things at the federal level -- especially so in the executive branch.

if one goes back and reads the constitution -- if you believe in such things -- it's incredible how far we've strayed in the last 100 years.

but, that's just my devalued two cents.

r8r