The US Government has all the authority it needs under the Constitution to defend it's populace against dangerous chemical threats, of which Marijuana constitutes one of the lesser ones.
This constant Libertarian assertion that government has no authority to stop dangerous threats to the populaces is just false, but like the Goebbels propaganda effort underpinning it, constant repetition of this false claim is necessary to convince less educated people to embrace this stupid idea.
And that is your goal; To convince the nation to do something stupid by constantly repeating false claims.
Emanate that penumbra, Al Gore.
Yes, it's just as false as the ignorant notion that pot is a "dangerous threat". Anyone who thinks so is an utter moron and has no clue what they are talking about.
dangerous chemical threats, of which Marijuana constitutes one of the lesser ones
Have you looked at the history behind the current stance on marijuana? Can you point to any studies showing the harmful effects of marijuana, or its active ingredients?
The original laws, before the Civil War, required labeling Cannabis as a "poison". Indeed, up to the 20th Century, the issue was about labeling, not prohibition.
Things didn't start to get tense until -- wait for it -- there were an influx of Mexicans. Reportedly, many Mexicans smoked marijuana to relax after working in the fields. Before the Great Depression, there still weren't any prohibitions. After the Great Depression, there was a slew of actions, including the establishment of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930. There were lots of claims by the head of the FBN, which resulted in the various States adopting laws to regulate Cannabis.
The Federal government used to look more kindly to Marijuana, with the passing of the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. Further, The Department of Agriculture and the US Army encouraged farmers to cultivate hemp between 1942 and 1945 (not for smoking or THC extraction).
For further reading: the Lagurdia Commission of 1944.
Then SCOTUS lent its paw, declaring the Marijuana Tax Act to be unconstitutional, in 1969. Oops.
Bottom line: the eventual prohibition was based on questionable studies -- bad science. Not surprising, as most of the arguments against the weed were emotional, not considered thought.
(Disclosure: I am not a user of marijuana myself, and don't anticipate a need to become a user.)
You mean like when you make up obviously false stats & post them on these threads, then get riled up when people call you out on your BS?
If the government has all the authority it needs, why did they have to pass the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the sale of alcohol in 1920? We still have the same Constitution right?
By that rationale, the Federal Government can regulate what you eat. Cholesterol is a dangerous chemical. So is Sodium Chloride. We are assured that limiting the ingestion of these is in the best interest of our personal and, thus, public health. (And the Government is working on this overreach)
I'm no fan of pot, I don't use it, but I have seen it benefit someone under Chemotherapy for cancer.
The problem with medical use is that of keeping the medical grade marijuana confined to medical use.
In reality, no where in the Constitution is it stated that the Federal Government has the authority granted to it to regulate what people consume, including food. That should fall to the States.