Replies

Amen to everything you have posted. I would only add though that the whole issue could be simplified if someone would read the Constitution. The Federal laws against cultivating your own marijuana are in my opinion a clear violation of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.

In a recent US Supreme Court decision regarding the "medical necessity" defense as an exception to the Controlled Substances Act, Justtice Thomas writing for the majority made a point of stating that the Court was not ruling on the Constitutionality of the CSA. The Court was only ruling that medical marijuana did not qualify for a "medical necessity" exclusion to the law.

Perhaps I am just hearing what I want to hear, but it sure sounded to me like the conservative wing of the Court was just begging for someone to challenge the entire Constrolled Substances Act on Constitutional grounds.

"...The Federal laws against cultivating your own marijuana are in my opinion a clear violation of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution..."

The official stance is that the "general welfare" clause in Article 1, Section 8, grants carte blanche to the Federal Government to do anything they jolly well want. The founding fathers evidently overlooked this loophole.

I would only add though that the whole issue could be simplified if someone would read the Constitution.

AMEN to that!!! Most arguments miss this point. It is not a question of, "are drugs dangerous?", "do the laws work?", "what is the cost/benefit analysis?", or anything like that. It is a matter of the constitution and inalienable rights of the individual to smoke, snort, drink, or inject anything he darn well pleases.

And no, social programs to help such individuals ought not exist either.