I'm going to try to consolidate the multiple posts into one response.
rb22982 says: "No no no and no again."
LOL, you forgot to stomp your feet!
You seem unable to grasp the simple concept of debate that when you post unsupported claims, it is incumbent upon you to defend and prove those claims, not the party questioning them. But in the interest of moving this discussion along, I'll agree to go ahead and show you where your premise is false.
"Marijuana is safer, less addictive and less of a high than alcohol [therefore] since alcohol is legal, its only logical to make marijuana legal as well [and if you don't] you are a hypocrite of the worst kind..."It is interesting to note that your solution to the inherent risk of marijuana is that you choose to make it legal, rather than making both illegal thus increasing the cumulative risk to society. But since you make that choice, we must deal with the why and how society chooses to deal with risks.
-- rb22982 [clarification added]
THIS FAR AND NO FARTHER ---
People have long recognized the danger to the individual (and the society as a whole), inherent in the abuse of mind altering substances like alcohol and marijuana. They have also recognized, as well, the impossibility of eliminating or controlling all of the different substances available to mankind. In response to the problem of risk, the people, in their "wisdom", decided through their elected representatives, that they would draw a line on such abuse and go "this far an no farther".
If society chooses to limit risk, then there has to be some limit to the cumulative or total amount of risk from all substances combined. Some like to quibble whether the line should include marijuana along with alcohol, some even argue that it should include neither. But like it or not, this is where the line has been drawn. Should any line have been drawn? If the risk to society is real, then absolutely yes, some line should be drawn. The failure for a society to act in the face of hazard is to elect eventual extinction rather than existence.
IS RELATIVE RISK THE CRITERION?
Now we can deal with your false premise that "relative risk" is the appropriate criterion for comparison. The reason alcohol is legal and marijuana is illegal is not one of relative or comparative risk, but rather one of more mundane practical considerations.
On to other matters...
rb22982 says: "however the feds have banned intra-state commerce as well."
To the extent that we look at examples of that and both agree that the specific regulation in question is intrastate in nature, then I agree that those should be overturned as unconstitutional.
But if I understand your position, that would still not remove your more fundamental objections that you have about federal government banning drugs under any theory in the first place. In other words, for you to object to intrastate vs. interstate, is a bit of a red herring, in that you object to both when it comes to banning drug commerce. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong!
rb22982 says: "This little snippet however...[implications of NV legalizing the sale of marijuana]...Throws out the necessity for the 18th and 21st amendment.
By that, I take it you mean that it would then become and example of Congress trespassing on intrastate commerce, correct? How so? State sanctioning and control of all marijuana sales and distribution makes it a single gigantic enterprise, just like organized crime. It would be impossible to have an enterprise that size that was not affecting interstate commerce.
The only way to make it legal without the state becoming part of the business would be to simply remove all laws governing marijuana from the books thereby making the state "silent" on the issue (not prohibiting it, not sanctioning it).
rb22982 says: "Feds not only ban the commerce of it, but also the substance itself is illegal to possess." (including link)
Poor, yet nevertheless valid, example. Of course simple possession can be made illegal under the interstate commerce theory because the quantity can be so large as to be explained only by its effect upon interstate commerce. The question should be possession of how much? If the amount is less (for instance) 20 pounds, then it would (as I have said before) have no business being controlled under any interstate commerce theory. That tiny portion of the federal enforcement activity would be unconstitutional.
This is not a post, it is a friggen book!
--Boot
No, actually that is not what I said, You continue to miss what I said. Let me repost from just the last post.
Why should marijuana be illegal.
Why should alcohol be legal
And you still fail to give a reason why marijuana should be illegal. You have given a backdrop of how people come to a conclusion to ban a substance, but no supporting evidence to make it illegal. Just asking you, do support keeping alcohol legal?
THIS FAR AND NO FARTHER --- People have long recognized the danger to the individual (and the society as a whole), inherent in the abuse of mind altering substances like alcohol and marijuana. They have also recognized, as well, the impossibility of eliminating or controlling all of the different substances available to mankind. In response to the problem of risk, the people, in their "wisdom", decided through their elected representatives, that they would draw a line on such abuse and go "this far an no farther".
Actually this is simply not true. The first drug law was 1913 with Cocaine which actually didn't ban it (it was thought at the time to be unconstitutional), so they placed a tax on it and then never issued a tax. The second drug law was alcohol with the 18th amendment which was of course constitutional and overturned with the 21st. The next was marijuana in 1937 with FDR due to propaganda such as this and this. They did the same thing, simply never issuing a stamp tax to purchase it. In '69 this method was dropped in favoring of just banning it outright and it has held up in the courts (so far). Even in the history of the US, banning a substance is relatively new, in terms of the entire world it is almost unheard of.
If society chooses to limit risk, then there has to be some limit to the cumulative or total amount of risk from all substances combined. Some like to quibble whether the line should include marijuana along with alcohol, some even argue that it should include neither. But like it or not, this is where the line has been drawn. Should any line have been drawn? If the risk to society is real, then absolutely yes, some line should be drawn. The failure for a society to act in the face of hazard is to elect eventual extinction rather than existence.
This isn't what I was asking for, I know that society via the man has placed laws, that is not what I am asking for. I am asking for what logical reasons would you come to the conclusion to ban marijuana. Medical facts, economic costs, lives, etc etc. You are not thinking the same level I am when I am asking for what logical reason. You are talking a different dimension. Pretend I am a congressman in 1937, you have to convince me that we need to ban marijuana. Do it.
IS RELATIVE RISK THE CRITERION? Now we can deal with your false premise that "relative risk" is the appropriate criterion for comparison. The reason alcohol is legal and marijuana is illegal is not one of relative or comparative risk, but rather one of more mundane practical considerations.
It is hardly a false premise, it is the most logical premise to base it on by any rational means. Cold hard facts, not liberal feeling rhetoric.
Alcohol can be made from products commonly found in all kitchens and grocery stores. Marijuana can not. Alcohol is made from materials that are the basic food stuffs for six billion people. It is ubiquitous. Marijuana is not. Therefore alcohol will always be unavoidably plentiful and available.
Hemp could be commonly found around the US before 1937. It grows quite easily here in the US. Even Thomas Jefferson grew it. However, this premise is still false, as marijuana is still all over the country and is easy to obtain.
Alcohol has long held a myriad of other important uses as a basic substance of the chemical industry, including solvents, fuels, medicines, military uses, etc. Marijuana has no such vital uses. Therefore, alcohol can never be dispensed with in society. Marijuana can be.
Hemp can be used as fuels, marijuana can be used as medicine, hemp can be made into 100s of products including rope, bird seed, and paper.
Alcohol has been the common drug of choice used my more people and more societies over a greater period of history than marijuana. Therefore, alcohol is a far better understood and accepted drug than marijuana.
This is not a logical reason to ban a substance and keep one legal (ignorance of a substance). This goes back to the hypocritical thought I want my drug but you can't have your drug, regardless of the dangers.
These are the practical reasons that, despite any comparative risk assessment, alcohol continues, and will continue, to be legal while marijuana is banned. Your presumption that it just had to be relative risk, is therefore flawed and false.
Ah that is not what I said, I said logically it was the best way and only conclusive way to go about banning a substance. I didn't say there were not other reasons (ignorance, propaganda, uses). I do not consider the others logical reasons, with the exception of uses. However, If you use uses, I can throw a hemp reason back at you for every alcohol use.
But if I understand your position, that would still not remove your more fundamental objections that you have about federal government banning drugs under any theory in the first place. In other words, for you to object to intrastate vs. interstate, is a bit of a red herring, in that you object to both when it comes to banning drug commerce. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong!
I have a fundamental objection with both, I do not have a constitutional object with both.
By that, I take it you mean that it would then become and example of Congress trespassing on intrastate commerce, correct? How so? State sanctioning and control of all marijuana sales and distribution makes it a single gigantic enterprise, just like organized crime. It would be impossible to have an enterprise that size that was not affecting interstate commerce. The only way to make it legal without the state becoming part of the business would be to simply remove all laws governing marijuana from the books thereby making the state "silent" on the issue (not prohibiting it, not sanctioning it).
This is how they changed the law in 1969 by saying that it was impossible to tell intra-state vs interstate. Before that, it was just assumed the burden of proof would be that State 1 was directly selling it to State 2. Note that it doesn't say people in state 2 cannot buy it in state 1, just a direct selling. Like I ship a case from my store in State 1 to state 2. Much like with dry/alcohol counties today. People from dry counties are still allowed to go purchase alcohol where it is ok to sell.
Poor, yet nevertheless valid, example. Of course simple possession can be made illegal under the interstate commerce theory because the quantity can be so large as to be explained only by its effect upon interstate commerce. The question should be possession of how much? If the amount is less (for instance) 20 pounds, then it would (as I have said before) have no business being controlled under any interstate commerce theory. That tiny portion of the federal enforcement activity would be unconstitutional.
See above. I believe our framers would have said otherwise, they had no intentions for the Feds to expand the Constitution that far to include common law and vice laws.