Replies

I have asked this before but haven't ever gotten an answer. While I am against a federal WOD for lack of Constitutional grounds, would it be acceptable for the separate states to pass laws if they so choose as requested by a majority of their citizens? I do believe it is within the states' rights to do this.

The short answer is "No". The Supreme Court, at the behest of those famous States' Rights advocates in the current Republican administration, has already ruled on that.

I would argue that states would be stupid to implement laws like that, for the same reason we're losing the federal WoD. However, you're correct: it's certainly within a state's right to make substances illegal (depending, of course, on that state's constitution).

Yah. It would be within a States/peoples power. In the same fashion that some states are defying the fed now, with MJ reformas a matter of fact.

EBUCK

I have asked this before but haven't ever gotten an answer. While I am against a federal WOD for lack of Constitutional grounds, would it be acceptable for the separate states to pass laws if they so choose as requested by a majority of their citizens? I do believe it is within the states' rights to do this.

Yes. This is actually SUPPOSED to be how it is done. This is the proper Constitutional law. But the Federal Government has taken advantage of the sheeple's ignorance.

States have always had the power to be "dry" or "wet". The reason Prohibition needed a Constitutional Amendment was to force ALL States to be dry.

All I truly want in the end is for the FedGov to stop violating the 10th Amendment, and leave this issue up to the States. I want them to stop picking on California, and all the other states that have medical marijuana. I want them to leave Nevada alone if they legalize. They have no Constitutional power to wage a War on Drugs. Hell, most of what the FedGov does is unConstitutional in this day and age. Where does the Constitution give them these powers?

Many other posters touched on most of what I would say, so let me just add this.

I personally believe that no level of government legitimately has the power to prohibit. And I will give the same reason I always do: When the evidence and crime become one in the same, you have just opened the can of worms that allows corrupt(or just zealous) police and justice systems get rid of any opposition. Secondly, when a "government" can define an action as a crime where there is no victim, you no longer have a free state, for anything can become a crime.

States should have the legitimate power to regulate public actions. Regulate and prohibit are opposites.

YES!!! IT should be the states right to choose to legalize drugs and get rid of the federal laws regarding it. However, I don't see that happening anytime soon, do you?

It should always go back to state rights over federal... that is the biggest issue here --not the exact laws alone but what they represent.. i think someone said nanny state .. i think it's a total waste of our resources..

Absolutey! Under the Constitution, "police powers" reside in the States. It' over the decades that the Feds have usurped this power unto themselves.

Remember, powers not specifically given to the Feds are retained by the states? 10th Amendment!