[Dane]

Dane, Dane, Dane. Once again, you're doing your feeble best to deflect to debate, in this instance trying to apply the liberal label to anyone in favor of changing the federal drug war. Despite the wide range of figures on the right who are questioning the approach the feds are taking towards drugs, you insist that it's all just a bunch of liberal hooey, as if anyone except a few of your cohorts on FR believes you. But go ahead, spew your nonsense, because more and more people in positions of power and influence are questioning the insanity of doing more and more of what is failing.

Huh I guess the defeat of the 3 main pro-drug intitatives(in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio) pushed by the pro-drug lobby and defeated by wide margins last November doesn't mean a thing. The only place where a pro-pot intiative passed was in that "conservative" bastion called San Francisco.

I guess the real world isn't allowed to intrude into your tiny but vocal pro-drug mutual admiration society on FR.

[dirtboy]

Huh I guess the defeat of the 3 main pro-drug intitatives(in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio) pushed by the pro-drug lobby and defeated by wide margins last November doesn't mean a thing. The only place where a pro-pot intiative passed was in that "conservative" bastion called San Francisco.

There have been many, many state initiatives regarding pot, some pass, some don't. Several states have decriminalized pot. So state action gives us a range of laws to see what works and what doesn't. But the state initiatives that pass are setting up a challenge to federal usurpation regarding these laws, as the feds are currently ignoring medical marijuana laws in several states, despite the fact that the pot in question does not cross state lines. That, in the end, is the true positive of the entire pot debate - states are fighting to regain their 10th Amendment right to set their own laws regarding matters that do not cross state lines.

I guess the real world isn't allowed to intrude into your tiny but vocal pro-drug mutual admiration society on FR.

I'm not pro-drug, Dane, I'm pro-Constitutional government. If individual states wish to inact pot restrictions, that is their perogative under the 10th. The federal government has no proper authority to inact three-quarters of the laws they force on the American public, pot laws are just one small aspect of that usurpation. But since you have your own agenda that blinds your to emotion instead of reason (a very liberal tendency, mind you), you applaud usupration instead of fighting it.

Once again, better sane than Dane.

[dirtboy]

Huh I guess the defeat of the 3 main pro-drug intitatives(in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio) pushed by the pro-drug lobby and defeated by wide margins last November doesn't mean a thing.

Actually, Dane, you just made a great argument for curtailing the federal drug war - it will allow the states to decide their own policies regarding pot, as these states are doing here. Thanks for helping demostrate how federalist, constitutional representative government is supposed to work.

Now if you would just express the same enthusiasm for the rights of other states to regulate pot use without federal interference.

[jenny65]

Huh I guess the defeat of the 3 main pro-drug intitatives(in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio) pushed by the pro-drug lobby and defeated by wide margins last November doesn't mean a thing. The only place where a pro-pot intiative passed was in that "conservative" bastion called San Francisco.

Hmm, where have I heard that before?
Are you getting lazy on us, or do you just have a set of canned responses you refer to?

Oh, and for the record, 43% to 57% doesn't qualify as a "wide margin". If it weren't for John Walters' heroic last-minute-pull-out-all-the-stops propaganda campaign, the Nevada referendum may well have passed (polls showed it very close at one point). But John's got an $18B budget to preserve, so truth goes out the door, and the undecideds fell for his garbage.