[Magnum44]

There is a big difference between ‘compulsory’ and ‘encouraged’ behavior. We are a little off the original discussion of defining what a threat to national security can consist of, but I guess I am a little surprised at folks only a generation from the greatest generation objecting to encouraging healthy behavior in our youth.

Encouraging this behavior is not ‘mandating’ this behavior, but posters here seem to be spring loaded to confrontational discussion.

There are many laws that compel adherence to ‘moral’ behavior (prostitution, porn, gambling, etc). Some of these vises are so abhorrent that they do rise to a national concern, even though they are not delineated in the constitution (child trafficking for example).

I think this thread was specifically addressing federal regulation of marijuana. My concern, and I think where national security MAY or MAY NOT apply (to be determined), is where the uncontrolled availability to drugs threatens the health and well being of kids in school or on play grounds, potentially taking someone with a bright future and creating a drug addled juvenile looking to steal something for his next baggie of weed.

Its impossible to count the future loss in dollars or lives for decisions made today for the convenience of generating a tax revenue.

[Mariner]

“Encouraging this behavior is not ‘mandating’ this behavior”

I agree wholeheartedly and think we could use more of it.

Drugs, alcohol, exercise, education and diet are all areas where the state would do well to encourage and set up role models for proper behavior.

Those encouragements should be thoroughly integrated into the schools and popular media.

[NobleFree]

Some of these vises are so abhorrent that they do rise to a national concern, even though they are not delineated in the constitution (child trafficking for example).

So "abhorrence" overrides Constitutional limitations?