[robertpaulsen]

And what negative aspect does this carry?

It wasn't meant to convey any aspect.

It was meant to point out that leaving the drug decision to the states would not be the same as leaving the alcohol decision the the states. Alcohol is legal in every state. I doubt that drugs would be.

It foolish for some people to say, "Leave the decision to the states" as though that solves some kind of problem. It doesn't. We would end up with the "dry town" "wet town" scenario on a much larger scale.

Actually, I can see the eventuality of an even larger WOD, as each "dry" state requests the federal government for border assistance.

[CSM]

"Actually, I can see the eventuality of an even larger WOD, as each "dry" state requests the federal government for border assistance."

I don't think this would be a wise use of the fed. government. If a state decided to remain "dry" then they should be required to fund the actions necessary themselves. If the cost of keeping it dry becomes to heavy, they would be required to change their policies. If the citizens of that state feel it is worth the additional cost to remain "dry" then they should fund it themselves.

[Conservative til I die]

It foolish for some people to say, "Leave the decision to the states" as though that solves some kind of problem. It doesn't. We would end up with the "dry town" "wet town" scenario on a much larger scale.

Do you believe towns and states should have *any* autonomy?