Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NobleFree

“In a nation founded on limited government and individual liberty, that’s the wrong question.”

Not necessarily. But I think I see where you are going.

Boiled down, US Constitution is one of limited powers, and there should be no federal involvement in this issue. The reality is that the federal government is not one of limited powers. If supporting pot legalization moves the US as a country back toward limiting the federal government’s powers to what is enumerated in the Constitution, then bring it on - all sorts of other things will need to be addressed - Social Security, Medicare, EPA, etc etc. The reality is that the left will only buy into this rediscovery of the 10th Amendment to get recreational pot legalized. For the right to buy into it, ...oaky, it gives a chance that other issues can be decided on the 10th Amendment. I think the reality is that none of the other current expansion of federal government outside its Constitutionally limited powers will not be touched by the judiciary and especially not Congress.

But my question on social benefit is still a relevant question, under current federal law, or whether the issue is moved to the states and the people under the 10th Amendment. It’s nice to argue about risk, cost, benefits, until we can’t find a benefit. “Violating nobody’s rights”, I generally agree with that principle, but it isn’t absolute. It can’t be used to ignore the significant health concerns on individuals and imposed on society about pot. Society’s non-pot smokers have an interest ...Let’s just say we disagree.


146 posted on 11/24/2018 7:29:19 AM PST by Susquehanna Patriot (Evolution is the long term solution to Global Warming. So let's party while we can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]


To: Susquehanna Patriot
If supporting pot legalization moves the US as a country back toward limiting the federal government’s powers to what is enumerated in the Constitution, then bring it on - all sorts of other things will need to be addressed - Social Security, Medicare, EPA, etc etc.

Not supporting pot defederalization will make any other Constitution-based arguments against big government a hypocritical con job.

“Violating nobody’s rights”, I generally agree with that principle, but it isn’t absolute. It can’t be used to ignore the significant health concerns on individuals

Tobacco, alcohol, and fast food pose significant health concerns for individuals; what degree of government restriction do you think a conservative supports there? As much as is currently the case with pot?

150 posted on 11/24/2018 9:10:23 AM PST by NobleFree ("law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson