[theBuckwheat]

Laws restricting pot and pot smoking test the Ninth Amendment (”The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”) and Tenth Amendment (”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.”) views of conservatives, who are mostly social conservatives but are willing to trade liberty for their ability to use big government law to restrict behavior they do not approve of. In this, they are willing to use big government as a tool just as much as the liberals.

If we went back into history, to say, the amount of liberty that we all had as citizens right after the Civil War, the federal government did not claim to have the power to regulate any drug, let alone impose a regulatory scheme on the mere possession of the seeds, stalks and leaves of plants it did not like. In fact, since it lacked the power, it took an amendment to the Constitution to impose a federal ban on alcohol, in that failed social experiment commonly called “Prohibition”.

If it is so compellingly important to ban pot today, let us secure the proper Constitutional authority to do so and not seduce the people by prostituting the Courts into making rulings to ban pot where no authority really exists at present in the text of the Constitution.

Those who detest pot smoking and “pot heads”, and wanting to control pot because they think it is a “gateway drug” (which it very well may be for some people) while nodding in agreement at the unconstitutional laws we have to control drugs are no more consistent with the law than are the gun grabbers who ignore the plain text of the Second Amendment.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Not so long ago-—1920’s-—marijuana was legal.

Its about as much a gateway drug as alcohol is....the only reason it is now a ‘gateway” drug is beacause it is part of the counterculture-—,ie illegal.

Legalize it, tax it, put controls on it for minors, test for it like DUI( alcohol). That will make tax money for anti drug education and rehab. It will take the criminality out of it.

We had no problems more than with alcohol when it WAS legal. this is illegal because of the ‘sin “ marality concept.

Oh, I will save you time..don’t bother to let me know “ You’re not very recovered, ex hippie.”

[robertpaulsen]

"the amount of liberty that we all had as citizens right after the Civil War"

I say we all work together to get back to that. Where we had a government that didn't support the slackers with "disability payments" or welfare or food stamps or medical care or housing. Where people took personal responsibility and had self-esteem and held others to community standards by shaming and ostracism rather than hundreds of laws.

THEN let's talk about legalizing drugs.

[tpaine]

If we went back into history, to say, the amount of liberty that we all had as citizens right after the Civil War, the federal government did not claim to have the power to regulate any drug, let alone impose a regulatory scheme on the mere possession of the seeds, stalks and leaves of plants it did not like.

Beware the man that touts the community and its supposed power to enact standards into law. --
--- The man who claims conservative credentials, while he argues that our US Constitution was not intended to protect our individual rights from state or local government infringements.
These men claim that 'We, -as a society', decide which rights we will protect --- And if 'We' choose not to protect your right to do [whatever], so be it. - If and when a majority of the people decide that we should protect a right, then we will. - Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this.

--- For instance, they argue that if there's nothing in a state constitution about the right to keep and bear arms [and States can change their constitutions by super-majority decisions], - then --- States can ban all guns if they so chose.