It may do over time, but my argument against that is the fact that there's already a thriving homegrown subculture (and it really is thriving just now) that would likely bloom (pun intended) if legal restrictions were removed. The corporations would try to muscle in on the action of course, but I suspect any legalisation would include a very strict ban on advertising and tight controls on where it could be bought and sold. This would severely limit the ability of the conglomerates to dominate the market.

Yes, I know there's a home-brew subculture as well, but there are cultural differences between the two products. The vast majority of drinkers have already been weaned on mass-produced beer and tend to find the idiosyncratic taste of many homebrews less than palatable (and being one of the brainwashed masses, I speak for myself there). Whereas pot heads are already dedicated to a product that is grown in clandestine circumstances, as much by enthusiasts as hardened criminals.

Nobody knows for certain, but it's my guess that were pot prohibition lifted, a significant portion of the market would fall into the hands of home growers. Simply because it doesn't actually involve a change in behaviour for most people. Could be wrong about that, but it's just my sense of the situation.

Yeah you are! Old "Short sharp shock" Merrick as we call you. Old "lock 'em up and throw away the key" Merrick. 'Course you are!

As would I. But I'd prefer even more to be able to get the bus down to my mate's house and pick up my pot. Just like I do now, except without being paranoid about the smell of the stuff on the bus home. My behaviour wouldn't change were it legalised. I'd just experience less anxiety (as would the chap who grows it).