[Harmless Teddy Bear]

A bad law? You said the states could prohibit drugs if they wished. It's "bad law" if the feds do it, but "good law" if the states do it?

Now you are getting the picture. It is not within the federal governments constitutional mandate. If it was then there would not have been a need for a constitutional amendment to have prohibition.

Many powers were left to the states, that is the way it should be. Local control. I really doubt many it any states would legalize meth the same way not many states legalize 190 proof. I think most would legalize marijuana.

[robertpaulsen]

"It is not within the federal governments constitutional mandate."

The regulation of drugs is within their Commerce Clause power.

"If it was then there would not have been a need for a constitutional amendment to have prohibition."

An amendment was desired. But it was not required.

"I really doubt many it any states would legalize meth ... I think most would legalize marijuana.

If that's the case, the gangs will not go away. Neither will the DEA. The prisons will remain full. Addicts will continue to prostitute and steal to get their fix. The courts will remain full.

So where's the savings? Where's the benefits? Why should the U.S. make this change? Why should the people vote for it?