May I just say to you and all other reasonable posters on this thread that this is the first WOSD thread I have seen where reasonable folks were able to argue the pratical effects of ending the un-constitutional prohibition of some drugs.
I often read these threads but never post because of the seeming uselessness of arguing with the "danes" of FR.
I applaud all of you for your patience and tenacity and hope you will continue to work to educate and stimulate the many folks like myslef who read the threads but don't have the patience to argue with brick walls.
*The Preamble is a statement of purpose, not a grant of authority.
*There is no element of the liberal Welfare State---existing or desired (by liberals)---that cannot be justified by that clause; are you willing to accept all that just to get drug education funding?That's a big step, that all of that immediately follows those four words in the preamble of the Consitution. I think it'd be a better idea to not jump to such forgone conclusions.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with welfare in and of itself; we all worry about our family's welfare, for example. And as it pertains to drug education in this country, I believe we should use a - yes - liberal interpretation. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and teaching the public about the consequences of drug use, both good and bad, will help them make learned decisions and avoid problems.