[DiogenesLamp]

Maybe we could try a plan where the country is divided up into different regions where things like the pluses and minuses of marijuana prohibition could be decided on a small scale, test case basis, instead of having all the rules come from Washington DC.

I'm thinking that about, say, fifty such regions would be a good number.

Is this too radical a concept for FR these days??

You can SAY you're only lighting your field on fire over on your side of the boundary, but should I object because of the possibility that your fire won't STAY on your side of the boundary?

[Ken H]

So do you support the Tenth Amendment authority of states to regulate intrastate mj - yes or no?

[tacticalogic]

You can SAY you're only lighting your field on fire over on your side of the boundary, but should I object because of the possibility that your fire won't STAY on your side of the boundary?

It should be implicit that living in a republic means that people in other states may be allowed to do things you, and the people in your state disagree with. If you and the people in your state want to make it illegal it is then your responsibility to enforce that prohibition in your state. That's how it was designed.

[Leto]

Well I have used both alcohol and pot, haven’t used either for 30 years. If one should be illegal it would be alcohol, more dangerous IMO as someone who had used both drugs.

It is no business of the government to tell you that you can’t use any plants that are part of the environment, synthetic/refined drugs developed by man is a different story.

[Notary Sojac]

You can SAY you're only lighting your field on fire over on your side of the boundary, but should I object because of the possibility that your fire won't STAY on your side of the boundary?

I would like to nominate this statement for "Most Inept Analogy of the 21st Century So Far".