Replies

In your world, you would force me and others like me to live under the tyranny of a small minority who think that drug use is an unalienable not legislatable by the citizens of states. So who's the statist here?

I, for one, believe that it's the FEDERAL component of the drug war that is the most anti-freedom and statist. Take, for example, the recent busts of the CA medi-pot clinics by the DEA. They were operating LAWFULLY under CA law, but Asa Hutchinson and his fedgov jackboots decided that they knew better what was good for the citizens of California and shut down the clinics, confiscating plants, supplies, and records. And this just 6 weeks after the WTC attacks, when one would think that law enforcement's priorities have changed.

A much better approach would be to put the DEA out of business and allow states to regulate marijuana and other drugs, just like they regulate alcohol. Some states (or even localities, like "dry counties" in states like Kentucky) would have prohibitory laws; others would be more lenient. This would be a Constitutional approach, and one that would work much better than the unconstitutional War on Drugs.

Excellent post. The fact is, it isn't about drugs. It's about the feds sticking their noses where the don't belong. I grew up in a dry town. It was a local choice. That's the way things should work.

As for the Drug Warriors posting the commerce clause fig leaf from the CSA as if it answers the constitutional issue, it actually illustrates the opposite: You could reliably find every federal law of dubious constitutionality by searching for the same phrases.

In fact the commerce clause is only supposed to enable the federal government to prevent state governments from interfering in interstate commerce. So even the underlying basis of this make-believe link to constitutionality directly contradicts the Drug Warriors' position.

Most simply stated: Why did it take an amendment to prohibit booze, and why is an amendment not needed to prohibit certain drugs?

I agree with you up to a point. That point is the "most statist" comment. Tyranny by a minority is no better than tyranny of a majority and in many ways worse. If people don't decide under what laws they live, who does? An "intellectual" elite who know better?

No thanks.