Ok, explain the 10th, 18th and 21st then.
The first flaw is to presume that, when comparing alcohol to marijuana, the appropriate standards for comparison are safety, addictiveness and level of intoxication. You've offered no reason or logic as to why we should accept those standards for comparison (irrespective of their truth), nor have you offered any reason or logic as to why we should reject any other possible standards for comparison.
Ok genius, what other standards WOULD you use except safety, addictiveness and intoxication when comparing a drug. Medical benefits maybe? Ok marijuana has more medical benefits than alcohol. Deaths caused? Ok marijuana is impossible to OD. alcohol causes over 100,000 deaths a year (which is far more than ALL illicit drugs combined). Societal costs? Alcohol has more societal costs than all illicit drugs combined. In fact, I dare you to show me in any way why alcohol is ok but marijuana is not by using any same standard.
The second flaw is to presume that society, by accepting one type of hazard, is therefore morally obligated to accept additional hazards as well. It is not "hypocritical" (as you say) for a society to draw a limit line as to the total amount of risk they're willing to accept and say "this far and no farther".
It is hypocritical if in EVERY way marijuana is less of a problem than alcohol. "I want my drug but you cannot have yours". Sure at the moment society can decide legally, that does not it any less of a hypocrite and immoral.
LOL, you want the whole constitutional argument in 25 words or less? Ok here is a thumbnail sketch of the relationship of the 10th, 18th and 21st Amendments to the drug legalization debate.
Notice that the 10th Amendment does not reserve any powers to the state or the people if those powers have already been otherwise delegated. The Constitution, via the Interstate Commerce Clause (Art.1, §8, ¶3), delegates to Congress the sole power to regulate interstate commerce and therefore, unfettered interstate commerce in marijuana is not a power reserved to the states or the people.AMENDMENT X
State Rights
"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." (emphasis added)
The goal of prohibition was not to simply regulate (prohibit) interstate commerce in alcohol, but intrastate commerce as well. The Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause only permits the regulation of interstate commerce, hence the need for an amendment. This explanation of the 18th Amendment, by extension, also explains the 21st Amendment (Repeal of Prohibition).AMENDMENT XVIII
Prohibition
(in pertinent part)
"...the manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors within...the United States...is hereby prohibited."
rb22982 says: "Ok genius, what other standards WOULD you use except safety, addictiveness and intoxication..."
Listing other applicable standards in this reply would not cure the defect in your flawed premise. You concluded that a person would be a hypocrite for not accepting your standards and no other standards, but you failed to present any reasons or logic for why this sould be so. My purpose in detailing that flaw was to elicit from you those reasons and logic. Do you have any? (Then we can get on to the separate issue of what other standards there may be.)
rb22982 says: "It is hypocritical if in EVERY way marijuana is less of a problem than alcohol."
Again you assert, that the only standards to judge that "in every way, marijuana is less of a problem" can only be the standards you offered and no others. Until you can show the reasoning and logic behind why we should use your standards and no other standards, your conclusion of "hypocrisy" can not stand. Flawed premise = flawed conclusion.
You've got some work to do here, rb22982, if you want to make your case.
--Boot