Once you detach yourselves from ideological aversion to federal regulations and/or tired sophistry and look at the situation on the ground, you can only agree with me. California can’t survive legalization of drugs. It’s true, California has done plenty to destroy themselves and doesn’t need this legislation to help it along. This is just a chapter in their Civilization Self Destruction Handbook.
I’m for the states deciding this for themselves and letting them destroy themselves. We in Oklahoma, for the most part, would rather not help support California’s habits though. We’re forced to by our oppressive Federal government. Until our government stops mandating Oklahoma law and the laws of other states, we should have a say in what happens in California. Once the feds are reigned in, we can talk about eliminating drug laws.
Why do you say that, and what do you mean? People are already using the drugs, just covertly. Why do you think making it overt would be so damaging? And lets try to keep the discussion just on pot, since that's all they are talking about.
Pot is damn near harmless when compared to booze and many other vices. I am a states rights guy also. The prohibition of pot is a pointless waste of time and money. I am not for legalization of any other drugs. I don’t smoke pot and haven’t for over 20 years.
The federal government should use its delegated power to regulate commerce among the several states as the Founders intended, IMO. Do you agree or disagree?
California can't survive legalization of drugs.
Californians can get all the illegal drugs they want at an affordable price. Score one more failure for the WOD, LOL!
Until our government stops mandating Oklahoma law and the laws of other states, we should have a say in what happens in California. Once the feds are reigned in, we can talk about eliminating drug laws.
So the feds use the Wickard Commerce Clause to mandate to the states, and you want them to... use the Wickard Commerce Clause to impose a nationwide prohibition until the feds quit using Wickard to mandate to the states. Is that what you're saying?
Anyway, I want to hear your defense of Wickard as being in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause.