[rightwing2]

The federal government is ALREADY forbidden, by the 10th Amendment, from any making any law criminalizing marijuana. 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.

While I understand your strictly construed interpretation of the 10th amendment I do not agree with your assertion that the federal government is prohibited by the 10th amendment from making any law criminilizing marajuana. I believe the founding fathers were supports of traditional morality and would have supported such a law against immoral vices such as drugs, prostitution, porn, etc.

[Mark Bahner]

"I believe the founding fathers were supports of traditional morality and would have supported such a law against immoral vices such as drugs, prostitution, porn, etc."

They would, and did, support such "vice" laws at the local and state level. They were absolutely opposed to such laws at the federal level. That is plain from a simple reading of the Constitution. The ONLY crimes Congress is given the authority to determine punishment are treason and counterfeiting (crimes against the United States), piracy (crimes that occur outside of the territory of any other country) and crimes against the "law of nations" (as in counterfeiting ANOTHER country's currency...which would make the U.S. a "bad neighbor" if it did not prosecute).

The Founding Fathers (except perhaps for the American monarchist, Alexander Hamilton) would be utterly incensed at the very idea of the federal government dealing with common crimes. They would be especially incensed with the idea of the federal government over-riding STATE laws (as in medical marijuana)...particularly state laws passed by a referendum of The People. That's why they insisted on a Second Amendment. They would have SHOT some DEA agents...and perhaps a Congresscritter or two. (After all, they shot British soldiers for simply trying to enforce existing tax laws.)

If you think the Constitution (specifically the 10th Amendment) does NOT forbid the federal government from criminalizing ANY drug, why do you think that they needed a Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol? Or don't you think that amendment was necessary? (Do you think the Congress could have simply passed the Volstead Act without an amendment?)