> Well, we have them around alcohol - and around tons of other things - mostly so people can't do things like advertise cigarettes on kids' shows, etc.
Surely it's parents' responsibility what their children watch? Some parents don't want their children to see pink-princess adverts; should those be banned too?
> Is heroin legal to sell? What about military-grade weapons technology?
Both should be, yes.
> Customers' private data?
That's a matter for private contracts.
> There's not 'already a system in place' - there are different systems for cigs, booze, T3s, Adderall, and Lord knows how many more. I get that it seems simple, but the devil is in the details, especially with this one.
That's the beauty of the jury system: 'ladies and gentlemen of approximately the same social class and status of the defendant, these witnesses state that he was intoxicated, for these reasons and with this evidence. How decide you?'
> And how do you even know if it's 'pot enough' to qualify for marijuana legislation?
Why do you need legislation? The default state of things is for them to be legal: there's no law allowing my colleagues to bring food into the office to celebrate Christmas; there's no law allowing my to purchase trousers; there's no law in place permitting you to drink water; why should marijuana, heroin or hand grenades be any different? Just let it go!
> This ignores the fact that other seeds took shitloads of work to legislate.
And yet somehow life before the Canadian seed regulations still went on. Maybe they improve things (maybe). But maybe it's just busywork for politicians which enables busywork and patronage for civil servants and regulatory capture by industry.