Thanks, I appreciate it!
Why is it a libertarian-esque mindset or approach? Surely it cannot be because I am trying to establish a principle by which we evaluate whether it should be criminal. Are libertarians the only folks who talk in terms of principles?
Welcome!
I see Kori summed this up pretty well but I'll go from my angle a bit on it. Libertarians principle tends to be slightly more to the "right" on the conservative scale in regards to governmental conservatism than your average Republican and even many general conservatives. The notion of "anything that doesn't harm others shouldn't be dealt with by the government" is part of this. Its where you have libertarians breaking with Republicans in regards to assisted suicide for example as well.
The reason I was saying the way you were tackling the issue was very narrowly focused and unlikely to garner wide appeal in regards to attracting additional support is because yours is one of, if not the, main argument that seems to be at the heart of most libertarian individuals reasons for legalization...that what one does with ones self should be ones own business and no one elses. While SOME non-libertarian minded conservatives may agree with this to an extent, the length of that extent will vary and depending on that may not be enough to sway them despite some generalized agreement. So the main argument you're making is most likely to have the greatest impact on the one group that has the largest percentage of its population already in favor of what you want.
This is not necessarily bad, and it seems this is more you having a particular theory and a pet issue, and pushing it because it interests you rather than trying to have some kind of tangible or realistic effect. In which case, you're dead on and doing a good job of that. I am simply saying that if your goal is not primarily from a philosophical and ideological but from a persuasive and activist stand point that a shift in your focus would be needed. But it seems your desire is more for the former, in which case your focus is perfectly find and well reasoned.
My first point of confusion is that John Locke and John Stuart Mill are to be considered libertarian? I suppose the social conservatives look to the bible and I am not surprised that progressives don't look to such Enlightenment philosophers. Still, I thought they were pretty mainstream.
Not necessarily simply the bible but cultural tradition. Cultural tradition in the country is that drugs are bad. While TECHNICALLY alcohol and caffeine are drugs, technically people are animals but every day people don't normally view ourselves as such do they? Marijuana, despite all the evidence you may present, is traditionally and culturally ingrained in many people to be more in line with coke and heroin then it is Jack Daniels and Budweiser, because of no other reason but its illegality and classification as a drug for the majority of these individuals lives. The notion of legalizing it is the notion of turning a cultural norm and standard on its head, in turning what they were taught by their parents and what they've taught their children into essentially a falsehood, and to establish in their mind the slippery slope possibility of "if we let one drug in, how quick will they use the same kind of arguments to get more". Its not necessarily the "Bible", as much as it is the cultural and societal traditions amongst many in America.
There could be numerous reasons for various others to not want it. Take Diane Fienstien, an unabashed liberal democrat, in regards to California's recent efforts as needing to be defeated because, as she describe it, legalization would be "a jumbled legal nightmare that will make our highways, our workplaces and our communities less safe." The general thought process being that sure, it may be no worse than alcohol...but do we need to add more alternatives out there for people to enter an altered state of mind. Lets say you take 100 people who would only do either while its legal. There's a 75% overlap of people who drink that also would smoke. Lets say the bottom 10% of that are people who would only drink and never smoke, and the top are people who would only smoke but never drink. There's 5% that would never do either. By adding marijuana you essentially take the number of potential intoxicated individuals (85%) and raise it higher (95%) with regards to that sample size, as now there are legalized choices are wider than it previously was. There's also the issues of combinations, as if I remember correctly studies generally find that Alcohol + Marijuana is more dangerous in regards to it affects than either substance on its own. So you have the safety issue as one of the possibilities.
The legal issues are one as well, in regards to the difficulty of it. People talk about how much it'd save in bureaucracy in regards to law enforcement, but one must look also at the difficulties in establishing it. To my knowledge there's no easy way to test for intoxication by marijuana like there is for alcohol to manage DUI issues. You have the unquestionable public issues that would arise if outdoor smoking of it is as allowable as cigarettes due to the persistence of stereotypes and the lacking of true, thorough, long term, studies in regards to second hand smoke from marijuana. That's going to cause constant issues with regards to it. While we can use alcohol and tobacco as a baseline for many things with it, neither are a direct analog so the issue of putting laws down that makes it reasonable and addresses concerns is going to likely be far from simple.
It annoys me a bit when people suggest there's no reasonable reason to oppose legalization. There is. There may be reasons you DISAGREE with. There may be reasons that counter your world view and what
you think is logical. But this does not mean its an irrational or unreasonable position to have, nor that it even is technically logical. No one individuals view points of what is and isn't important in regards to government is somehow magically better, more "True", or more important than anothers base on nothing but their view. For example Kori's notion of the need for the government to regulate things to maintain a certain level of cultural morality, with that morality being defined by the society, is not necessarily "wrong" anymore than Reefs notion that the government should stay out of the business of telling people what to do with regards to their own body is "right". One could argue its not what the founders would want, but then again one could argue back that there's no where in our laws that state that we must have political opinions in line with the founders or that only those opinions are "correct" or "right".
IS it possible to have unreasonable opinions as to why marijuana should remain illegal? Absolutely! If you think it should remain illegal because its going to make black people go crazy and rape white women then absolutely, your opinion is unreasonable. This is the same in regards to the other side. If your argument for legalization is "Marijuana is safer for you than Water!" your opinion is also unreasonable. But neither makes either side inherently unreasonable with regards to any and every argument being made against/for it.
(The last bit wasn't specific to you reef, just a general thing)