[tacticalogic]

You see a personal attack where none was intended.

It is what it is. To quote Rush, "words mean things", and the meanings of the words objectively comes to a personal attack. I can make no claim to direct knowlege of your intent, but you seem to be wanting to dismiss my arguments by claiming I have dubious motives.

I have concluded you want mj to be legalized...am I wrong?

Yes, you are. And you didn't have any business claiming I did without asking that first.

[RginTN]

Ironically using your definition of a personal attack, you engaged in a personal attack first with the post bellow. I never advocated for an abuse of the Commerce Clause but you accused me of doing so by claiming something I never expressed. I think I'm done posting to you as it appears to me you are playing a mental game...what was the point in challenging my posts when you have now admitted to not wanting marijuana legalized. Moving on.

"The problem is not the "what", but the "how". The "status quo" you advocate is accomplished via an abuse of the Commerce Clause that is also the basis for the existence of agencies like the EPA and laws like the Assault Weapons Ban. Obamacare cannot exist without it. It's an open-ended assumption of power with no objectivly discernible limitation. As long as questions about the Constitution return answers about the drugs it cannot be discussed, much less addressed and rectified."