Do YOU support legalization?

[JonLP24]

104. I already researched plenty

if I didn't, why would I know all about the Marijauna Tax Act, the Controlled Substances Act, it's classification, the commission? The weight of the evidence shows how idiotic current policy is especially when alcohol & tobacco are legal. Everything I posted is true & easily verifiable w/ the exception of the last 1-2 paragraphs which is just my opinion but it's obvious politics rather than research is why it maintains the legal status it does.

When it comes to studies, they vary depending on what they're trying to find about cannabis. There are studies on how addicting it is, different studies that look into the multiple medicinal benefits, how it affects driving, how it affects teens, etc. You also have to realize the government often rejects Universities requests to conduct studies. I don't know what it is you're asking but most of those respectable types you mention aren't saying what it is you think they're saying.

A study sponsored by the state of California, conducted by the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research at the University of California, San Diego.

It studies the medicinal aspects of it but the interesting thing (I'm waiting for you to accuse me of glossing over negative claims, which I'm well aware of, but they aren't so horrible that it must remain illegal)

The classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug as well as the continuing controversy as to whether or not cannabis is of medical value [59] are obstacles to medical progress in this area. Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking. It is true cannabis has some abuse potential, but its profile more closely resembles drugs in Schedule III (where codeine and dronabinol are listed). The continuing conflict between scientific evidence and political ideology will hopefully be reconciled in a judicious manner [60, 61]. In the meantime, the decision to recommend this treatment in jurisdictions where use of medical marijuana is already permitted needs to be based on a careful assessment that includes proper diagnosis of a condition for which there is evidence that cannabis may be effective, along with consideration as to response to more standard treatments. Prior substance abuse history, psychiatric comorbidity, and other factors need to be weighed in a risk benefit analysis. Part of this analysis should consider that the potential longer-term harms of the cannabinoids are not fully understood: these include abuse and a dependence syndrome, adverse psychiatric and medical effects in vulnerable populations, and documented risk to traffic safety when combined with alcohol, and perhaps singly [62]. In the long term, as further studies demonstrate whether cannabis is effective for various indications, this should lead to development of novel modulators of the endocannabinoid system which may be prescribed and used as more traditional medicines.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/03/government-sponsored-study-destroys-deas-classification-of-marijuana/

Again, if the government's case is so rock strong solid as you seem to claim, why is cannabis Schedule I, cocaine & methamphetamine Schedule II, and alcohol & tobacco legal? The negative effects of cannabis, which the government uses as a reason to keep it illegal, is nowhere near as bad as those other substances. The only possible way to answer that question logically is that they're hypocrites.