Replies

I worked in Manhattan for decades. Stoners and other fans of "chemical refreshment" (HT Zappa) have ALWAYS taken my change.

There is one big diff: the ganja today is waaaay more potent than at Woodstock.

Here's the REAL problem alleged "conservatives" must face on federal drug laws. It took a Constitutional Amendment to ban booze. What ridiculous torture of the Constitution is required to ban pot?

Btw if you say the Commerce Clause, you're a philosophical cousin of gun grabbers, comrade.

The Federal government, since the founding of this nation, has always wanted to tax the financial success of booze. It amazes me that the Feds hasn’t done the same with cannabis.

Other than taxation reasons, this isn’t a Federal issue. Banning alcohol, weed, tobacco, e-cigarette’s, or whatever should be done at the state levels.

I am not a supporter of absolyte cannabis legalization. As a police officer if almost 40 years experience I’ve seen too much that convinces me that recreational/non-medicinal cannabis use is a destructive thing. I feel exactly the same way about alcohol, with wisdom coming from too many years as an active alcoholic (10 years sober praise God). Alcohol has many great applications as a metal parts cleaner, an antiseptic, and maybe medicinally...but as for casual/recreational use it is a destructive thing. The same applies to cannabis. It has some legitimate uses in medicine, in the making of hemp products that are effective consumer products....but it’s use as a casual/recreational intoxicant it has terrible impact.

Complete legalization of cannabis is a horrible idea. But it is hypocrisy to have legal booze but not legal cannabis.

It took a Constitutional Amendment to ban booze. What ridiculous torture of the Constitution is required to ban pot?

Btw if you say the Commerce Clause, you’re a philosophical cousin of gun grabbers, comrade.

Back in 1919 the idea was that Congress was limited in what it could Constitutionally do by what was stated in Article 1, Section 8. The first attempt to ban pot was by putting a tax on it and refusing to sell the tax stamps necessary to be legal. By the time SCOTUS said that was unconstitutional, the old Commerce Clasue gambit had been in use for decades.

Apparently, the plain language of the Constitution is too complex for ordinary mortals to understand. Only the brilliant minds of SCOTUS Justices can parse the meaning. /s