Posted on 06/08/2018 10:10:32 AM PDT by Mariner
It would end FEDERAL Prohibition, and it’s a textbook case of appropriate analogy.
Yes, there will still be some local jurisdictions that prevent it’s sale...even use.
But within 3 years of Federal decriminalization, all states will legalize. There is no way they will be able to sustain a budget to enforce a law against when they are surrounded by states that have legalized.
They will yield, of necessity.
If you legalize marijuana on constitutional grounds — which I agree with — then I don’t see what justification there is to outlaw heroin, crystal meth, etc.
“You’re just upset because you cannot use government to compel the behavior you want everyone to comply with...and it eats at you.”
Nailed it.
Policing morality is a problem.
Constitutionally speaking this should be a states issue, unless drug issues cross a line of national security concern, which in some cases I think they do, but certainly not all cases.
Medically, I might buy the argument that pot has medicinal uses, but if so it should still be a controlled substance as the abuse potential, especially among youth, is too great.
Morally, the Bible warns against selfishness and sloth as deadly sins. Recreational drugs satisfy a selfish indulgence, and do not glorify the Maker. But unless it hurts or infringes on someone else’s rights, morality is between the individual and God. We are all guilty of some sin.
Our constitutional rights and our constitutional government (if we can maintain it) are dependent upon a moral society. We are close to losing that, evidenced in a multitude of things including our divorce rates, drug use and other addictions (porn, alcohol, etc), out of wedlock parenting, and corruption and crime.
So from a national security perspective (saving our constitutional govt) its not in our interest to encourage marijuana use. Beyond national security, constitutionally, it belongs to the states. Defining the fuzzy line between these two will be a challenge. I think it would be a mistake to just wave it off completely to state governments without drawing that distinction, particularly since so many state governments are either corrupt (only concerned with the revenue legalization provides) or inept, or both.
If I may offer a correction, they probably both started with cigarettes - say age 12? Then, they most likely broke into a liquor cabinet to steal some whiskey and get drunk - 12-14? Eventually, they acquired a taste for beer; pot might have entered the picture around the same time - 14-16?
Actually, if you want to be honest, predilections towards addiction, regardless of gateways, are easy to determine by the time a child is 5. Doing poorly at school, aggressive, hyper-active (not in an athletic way), resisting parent/teacher authority, etc.
Blaming ingrained tendencies on a specific drug is simply trying to obscure the issue. Regardless of availability, people determined to destroy themselves can accomplish it through many different channels.
Nor I. Also matters for the states - none of which appear to be champing at the bit to legalize heroin or crystal meth.
Very true.
Not following you here ... do you mean the distinction between what federal restrictions are and are not justified by Constitutional national security concerns? If so, what are the justified restrictions?
Right. The state issue is completely separate. Some states used to outlaw things as harmless as ticket scalping. That’s up to them. On constitutional grounds, the DEA should be eliminated entirely.
Using your definition it sounds like something that would be in the national interest would be to encourage healthy, active, drug free lifestyles. Hmmm, how about mandated, group exercises?
Seriously, you statist nuts should join up with the proglibs to act out your control fantasies. Jeez
Yeah, I’m sure business owners are really happy about trusting their business to users.
I’m sure the insurance companies that insure them will be really happy as well.
I could get behind it if 100% of the tax revenue goes into treating all addicts, both drugs and alcohol. I do not believe in legislating morality but drug/alcohol dependency will go up. America is a different place. People get addicted to everything now. Pot is a gateway drug for some people.
Disagree. A probation officer in a small Colorado town told us that marijuana is ho hum to folks the big thing now is something called tar.
“War on Pot is make-work for narcotics officers.”
It also distracts from the real problems ... heroin and meth. Abusing weed is as stupid as abusing alcohol, but heroin and meth destroy communities.
Tommy Chong :-D
Trump signed a pot leaf poster at a rally in Fayetteville NC in 2016. You can see it at the 3hr13min55s mark. The stream was from Right Side Broadcasting.
https://youtu.be/BNNLOOP9dpk?t=3h13m49s
Yes, and that’s the hard part that needs defining. A real and definable threat to our ability to produce enough scientist, engineers, etc to support our maintaining a lead in high tech, dual use, technology would be an example, but that’s not clearly enough by itself. You also have to have the human resources capable of fielding an army, air force, and navy. You also have to the human resources to man critical field of medicine, industry, etc, etc. In other words a society of drunks and drug addicted youth wont work. But codifying that at a federal level would/will be difficult to do without crossing the 10th amendment.
I think parts of the problem are easier to codify than others. An earlier comment on use of interstate commerce law seemed like it would be appropriate, as well as continued enforcement of the national borders against drug cartels. But if we now have our own legal ‘cartel’ industries in certain states, that really does make this a complex problem to address.
I think my opining comment was that morality is difficult to police, so your knee jerk reaction to my thread contribution is over the top.
Sorry, but comparing weed to coke or meth is false equivalence. I haven’t heard of a pack of weed addicts running around and destroying neighborhoods or attempting to eat people.
I’m not a drug user (outside of nicotine in my ecig) ... I have no skin in this game outside of the freedom to choose to use weed if I want w/o paying a legal price. I can’t see weed as a drug that destroys communities unlike meth, heroin, or cocaine and its various derivatives like crack.
Did they start with weed or with cigarettes and alcohol?
Intellectual honesty goes a long way toward making your case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.