Replies

P.S. Last I checked, Ron Paul and Dana Rohrabacher were two of only three Republican representatives to co-sponsor Paul's (and Barney Frank's(!)) legislation to stop (unconstitutional) federal government meddling in state medical marijuana initiatives. Since Paul and Rohrabacher are among the "top 10" "conservatives"...perhaps federal government "conservatives" are (finally!) going to follow the Constitution on at least one aspect of marijuana (medical marijuana).

Somehow, I missed the constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana. Perhaps you could be so kind as to tell me where to find it. Paul's and Rohrbacher's support of legalizing harmful illicit drugs is pretty wacked out and a black mark on them in my book, but it does not overcome their overall strongly conservative voting records.

In California on November,5,96,California voters voted to legalize the medical use of Marijuana.I'm assuming that Congressman Rorbacher wanted California law to be enforced without interference from the federal government. A good conservative wants to protect States' rights. There is nothing whacked out about that.

Somehow, I missed the constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana.

It's not a "constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana." There is no need for ANY change in the Constitution to absolutely forbid the federal government from making any law criminalizing marijuana. The federal government is ALREADY forbidden, by the 10th Amendment, from any making any law criminalizing marijuana.

This is a bill proposed by Ron Paul and Barney Frank, intended to stop our law-breaking (Constitution-violating) U.S. Attorney General from interfering with state laws that permit doctors to prescribe marijuana, and patients to use it, for medical purposes.

Paul's and Rohrbacher's support of legalizing harmful illicit drugs...

This is "conservative" ideology in a nutshell. The Constitution does NOT give the federal government the power to criminalize ANY drug...nor regulate any drug. But "conservatives" don't really give a damn about the Constitution (The Law). Not when the The Law stands in the way of doing what they want to do. Their hypocrisy in pretending to care about The Law, and then violating it, or supporting its violation, is extremely annoying.

"Somehow, I missed the constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana. Perhaps you could be so kind as to tell me where to find it."

Amendment IX to the United States Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X to the United States Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A Constitutional amendment is not needed to legalize marijuana or any other drug. Congress does not have the Constitutional power to illegalize it. It is an issue that should be left to the states and their legislatures.

... support of legalizing harmful illicit drugs is pretty wacked out ...

This comment would make more sense if alcohol and tobacco were not already legalized, harmful drugs. I think it is hypocritical for the govt. to legalize some harmful drugs and not others. Thus, making "illicit" drugs legal is not as wacked out as it appears.