I think the word legalization has two meanings.One is the meaning in which growing, selling and consumption of marijuana is socially accepted and agents of government don't bother you.Nobody here has a problem with that. That's kinda where we were going with this thing.However for some people, legalization means strict market regulation by the state, taxation. On that count you'll find DPR and the vendors and myself completely set against your ideals. I've already made an entire thread on the subject in which I was repeatedly downvoted by forum posters who didn't like to hear that A: state regulations are fundamentally antithetical to free marketeers like ourselves and B: there are really good reasons you don't want a State to be involved in the production and distribution of narcotics, on both economic (inefficiency, monopolism, high prices) and social (use as a tool of suppression e.g. compulsory drug consumption) grounds. All of this has happened before in other countries. Legalization leading to the development of monopolies isn't legalization. It means it's legal to consume drugs, not for business people to manufacture and distribute them without being a government crony lobbying for such from the hugely corrupt and frankly inept pharma "industry" (a whole other rant I won't get into). Who sells you drugs, it really matters. Legalization without free market competition would be the worst of all worlds. Besides, there is another very strange idea that pervades the legalization camp. That is that democracy has something to do with this*. That is absolutely hilarious and I laughed for ten minutes until I realized the other people talking to me were serious. If you think voting for what you want will have any effect on national drug policy whatsoever I've a bridge to sell you. Thinking this way is like thinking replacing the engine of a cruise ship has an impact on the arrangement of the deck chairs. In the short term you may have an impact, but in the long term these sorts of things are determined by self interest. The truth is that it is not in the interests of the government to legalize drugs because it's a multi-billion dollar racket. People's jobs, huge numbers of them, are predicated on drugs being illegal. Nor is it in the interests of cartels or mafias to legalize drugs, since the people manufacturing and distributing are going to be the pharmaceutical companies that bid the highest, and they won't bribe the right people with enough money unless they can ensure an absolute monopoly. We are selfish, self interested as well, the only difference is that we're willing to accept competition as a darknet market which will ultimately mean drugs will have higher quality, cheaper prices and more availability. Nothing else will work. In order to change a market system, you must first adapt the flows of capital within it into a structure that *actually accomplishes your goals*. Bitcoin is a great example of cryptoanarchists achieving their political goals via computer code creating a system of checks and balances that produces a financial system that suits their purpose. The way some pro-legalization people talk you'd think talking about problems actually solved them. Nope. It's about the money. I don't mean that in a "oh, money is so corrupting, what a world we live in" sense, I mean it in the sense of forgetting to put in the foundation before you constructed the house sense.So you have two real options. You can persuade a bunch of people they'll make even more money than when they had a monopoly, or a different bunch of people that they can take over a monopoly (you can give different groups of people special names if you like, I don't give a fuck, it doesn't make a material difference). Then you can hope they are really "Good Guys" and these guys achieve what you want because it's the right thing to do. Or you can go the free market route and leave it open to everybody to participate. The lazare faire route will actually achieve what you want. Let the market decide. * Do you remember voting to criminalize drugs in the first place? In fact does anyone? No. In reality small lobby groups with outsize leverage have always decided it, since forever A.D, either religious fanatics and/or monopolists.