These threads all seem to align the same way. But the most disturbing are those who post that really don’t accept the conservative view here.
One can argue that pot is bad. There are several studies that point to that. One can argue that pot is good. There are new emerging studies that point to that. By the same token, anything in excess is bad regardless of the good and bad.
What folks here — on this particular forum — shouldn’t be able to argue is that — regardless of your position on pot itself — the laws that were used to implement its prohibition, including the 1937 Marihuana Act and the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, were derived and invented on very shaky Constitutional grounds. This is especially obvious when looking at what it took to prohibit — and make available again — alcohol.
You don’t have to be a pro-pot person to understand why this should and must be a State issue. Constitutionally, the Federal government has no right in this realm, unless they take the step of creating an Amendment that would override the boundaries of the 10th Amendment. And no, the Supremacy Clause should not apply here, as a strict reading of that clause states very clearly that it only applies to laws “made in Pursuance” of the Constitution — not laws outside of its purview.
Congress does need to act, but not to enforce it’s wrongly-derived law, but to fix it by passing it back to the States.
It is likely this will go to the Supreme Court with so many States now on board. I’m hoping that the Originalists on the court will rule with the Constitution, and not jump through hoops (as Roberts is want to do) to come up with some vaporous reason to keep Federal prohibition in place.
You are correct and thanks for posting. Legitimate law can only be derived from constitutional authority. People who forget that are not conservatives.