[cinFLA]

You are probably mistaking that with my list of FR screen names I bump for WOD-related articles.

Agreed. My wife just came home for lunch and I my attention was distracted. However, you must realize that by being anti-WOD you are anti-suppression of hard drugs in society. If your position were only to legalize pot, then that should be your position.

[E Rocc]

However, you must realize that by being anti-WOD you are anti-suppression of hard drugs in society.

You're falling victim to the statist fallacy that anything that is disapproved of must be banned by law. I know many people who don't approve of drug use that still oppose the WOsD, mostly because it does more harm than good.

-Eric

[jmc813]

However, you must realize that by being anti-WOD you are anti-suppression of hard drugs in society. If your position were only to legalize pot, then that should be your position.

For all intents and purposes, that is my position. However, as I have mentioned before, I think the Federal War on Drugs is largely unconstitutional, and I believe each state should dictate their own policies. If this were the case, I would have no problem whatsoever with my state (NJ) banning cocaine, LSD, heroin, etc.

I am also pro-life, and oppose Roe v. Wade not only on a moral basis, but a constitutional basis as well. I think each state should decide whether or not to allow abortion, the same way it was before Roe v. Wade. It is another example of where the Federal government simply should not be involved.