DEA operations chief decries legalization of marijuana at state level

Washington Post ^ | 01/20/2014

[OneWingedShark]

>> You’re operating on a faulty assumption here: that the illegalization is itself legitimate
>
> So, we can’t ban heroin? How about Coke? Meth?

Nope; not at the federal level.

Or full auto weapons?

The second amendment prohibits that.

Or private ownership of nukes?

Do you know how much it costs to make a nuke?
How about the upkeep? What about the delivery system?
This might be an issue for the mega-rich, or for a whole State, but it's not even remotely in the realm of everyday life.

Alcohol was common and legal in 1776, other drugs were not. There ARE some needed limits on states rights, even though there are more limits on them than there should be.

The limits are obviously as stated in the tenth amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Gunslingr3]

They probably don't want their kids downing a six-pack before school either, but that doesn't mean Prohibition itself wasn't worse than having alcohol legally available.

I didn't ask about beer I asked about pot but if you don't want to answer the question so be it.

I did 'answer' it, hence the word "either" in the reply. Do you grasp what that implies, or have you had too many beers before posting? :)

It has come to light that the Schedule I designation for cannabis was entirely political. The end of Prohibition II with respect to cannabis on the federal level is probably going to come from that direction to spare politicians being forced to vote on it.

They should vote on it though, because Prohibition II is a disease worse than what it proposes (and fails) to cure. We can't get the 4th amendment back, nor begin to roll back the police state its abnegation has caused, until the War on Drugs is recognized for the failure it is.

[central_va]

There is no such thing as an Air Army in 1787