[Blue Ink]

The Founding Fathers opposed tyranny of the majority: “When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” - Federalist #10

It’s fine to quote the Federalist Papers — they’re an excellent philosophical guide — but what’s binding is the Constitution. And the Constitution is absolutely silent on marijuana. So the matter is delegated to the people through the states — per the Constitution.

And the people don’t want marijuana legalized. There may be tyranny of the majority, but there is also government by majority — which is how we do it. Or are you suggesting that everything that’s decided by popular vote is “tyranny of the majority?”

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If what’s binding is the Constitution, from where in that document does the federal government derive the power to criminalize a substance? Are you really going to make a case for the Commerce Clause here?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

And the people don’t want marijuana legalized. There may be tyranny of the majority, but there is also government by majority — which is how we do it. Or are you suggesting that everything that’s decided by popular vote is “tyranny of the majority?”

What you're forgetting, though, is that government by majority is not absolute. It has its limits, and those limits are what we're talking about when we bandy around phrases like "tyranny of the majority." What it means is that a majority cannot band together to deprive someone of his or her rights simply by virtue of assembling 50.000001% of a popular vote.

For instance, if I suggested that my neighbors could band together and vote to deprive me of my house . . . in other words, to relieve me of my right to own property . . . you'd rightly think that was absurd, yes? Well, the same dynamic is in play when we talk about grass. Do I not have the same right to determine what I want to eat, drink, smoke, or chew?

[JustSayNoToNannies]

I don’t want to live in the kind of crap, third-world country that tolerates prostitution and heroin usage [...] And it’s not your government that’s telling you what to — it’s your fellow citizens.

The Founding Fathers opposed tyranny of the majority: "When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." - Federalist #10

It’s fine to quote the Federalist Papers — they’re an excellent philosophical guide — but what’s binding is the Constitution. And the Constitution is absolutely silent on marijuana. So the matter is delegated to the people through the states — per the Constitution.

So are you willing to live in the kind of country some of whose "crap, third-world" states tolerate prostitution and heroin usage?