[tpaine]

Here is the constitutional point where Tex & I 'agreed to disagree' yesterday:

To: tpaine
It is simple. Either States CAN restrict and prohibit highly dangerous substances, not protected by the USC, or they CAN NOT. After that, it is up to each state to decide what is too dangerous.
162 posted on 3/20/02 5:34 PM Pacific by Texaggie79

Thus, we could reduce the issue to:

States CAN restrict and prohibit private possession of highly dangerous substances such as 'drugs', not specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution.

I'm still not sure that I could do justice to debating that point on FR radio, & have no ideas of a team mate either. - But I've always been more than ready to argue that point on the forum.

[Bob J]

Constitutionality is, of course, one issue. Are you saying you two agree on the moral and societal consequences issues? I was under the impression you two were on completely different sides of the entire WOD issue.