Make Peace With Pot

NY Times ^ | April 26, 2004 | ERIC SCHLOSSER

[tdadams]

If the public voted in laws legalizing all illegal drugs, would you accept their judgement?

It probably wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen.

Ideally, this should be decided state by state. The states are the marketplace of ideas. If California and Massachussetts wants to legalize it all, let them do it and we'll all sit back in the comfort of our prohibitionist states and see how it all works out.

[tacticalogic]

If you oppose the wod on federal grounds, what is your opinion of states' rights to make and enact laws regulating illegal drugs?

That is well within the pervue of the states' authority.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

But if they decide against the issue, you would then have a problem with their decision?

[tacticalogic]

I am not sure they wanted either. Bush the first would have won be it not for Ross Perot.

Entirely possible, but not an answer to the question.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

That is well within the pervue of the states' authority.

That is good, because I don't want to live next door to a crack house, legal or illegal. I want someone to be able to do something about the crack house next door.

[tdadams]

But if they decide against the issue, you would then have a problem with their decision?

You seem to have a very narrow scope on this topic.

Eleven states, I believe, have voted to legalize medical marijuana. Yet, the federal government says that doesn't matter at all. The federal law says it's still illegal, no matter what.

That's not letting the people decide. That's imposing central, national tyranny.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Entirely possible, but not an answer to the question.

Maybe not the answer that you consider to be the correct one.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

You seem to have a very narrow scope on this topic.

Perhaps so, but medical mj notwithstanding, no state has voted to date to legalize all illegal drugs. And I argue that the reason why, is that the public does not want those said same drugs to be legalized.

[jmc813]

How does that cause the public when they go to the polls on illegal drug issues, to vote those issues down time after time?

Recent state referrendums have resulted in wins for both the loserdopians as well as the JBT's.

[KEVLAR]

You should get help. Your preoccupation with Mr. Soros cannot be healthy.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Recent state referrendums have resulted in wins for both the loserdopians as well as the JBT's.

Interesting. But I must confess that the state referendums I am most worried about presently is that of W's chances at re-election. I am most worried.

[jmc813]

But I must confess that the state referendums I am most worried about presently is that of W's chances at re-election. I am most worried.

After the debacle in PA the other night, I'm taking a week or so off from worrying about elections.

[robertpaulsen]

"This is a case dealing with actual commerce ... Find a case where Congress seeks to regulate something that is neither being bought or sold"

So if it is actual intrastate commerce, like drugs, you're saying that it could be regulated if it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

[tacticalogic]

Maybe not the answer that you consider to be the correct one.

Not a matter of "correctness", but rather of being respondent to the context of the question.

[tacticalogic]

So if it is actual intrastate commerce, like drugs, you're saying that it could be regulated if it has a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

Sorry, but your trying to sneak the aggregation principle in under the table. Won't work.

[robertpaulsen]

I thought it was eight states, not eleven.

The federal law says it's illegal because it has no medical use. If marijuana were a Schedule II drug, I don't believe the feds could stop California.

[SupplySider]

You are referring to the drugs that were researched and approved for various uses legally in the United States compared to the illegal drugs that have been banned?

They could be prescribed better for sure and I do think over time views sometimes change as time reveals their best application and dose.

I think I see less of a distinction between legal and illegal drugs. Marijuana, a cheap and long used substance with mind altering and medicinal properties can give you twenty years in prison for possesion of a small amount. Prozac, an expensive relatively new lab-created chemical with mind altering and medicinal properties is perfectly fine, legally. Both alter brain chemistry to improve a person's mood.

I don't see much difference religiously or morally. There are desperate psychotic patients who are prescribed Prozac, but I believe the millions of users generating millions in drug company profits are mostly people looking to be happier, similar to the marijuana users. I believe in the rule of law, and don't advocate breaking drug laws, but I think there is a huge moral problem when the alcohol, Prozac, and Ritalin crowd is locking up the marijuana crowd. Sometimes I wonder if marijuana were a patented drug instead of a ubiquitous weed if we wouldn't be seeing TV ads for Marinol.

[robertpaulsen]

If a product manufactured and consumed locally is deemed to have an effect on regulated interstate commerce, of course it should be regulated also. Even if it is neither bought or sold.

How else is Congress to regulate interstate commerce? Unless, of corse, you're saying Congress shouldn't have that power.

[tdadams]

The federal law says it's illegal because it has no medical use.

It has no medical use according to the fedgov itself! Many doctors disagree.

If marijuana were a Schedule II drug, I don't believe the feds could stop California.

And who determines which drug classification it falls under... again, the fedgov.

[tacticalogic]

How else is Congress to regulate interstate commerce?

"Regulate" - to keep in good working order. Wickard v. Filburn did not result from a conservative reading of the Constitution. Pretending that decision was self-evidently correct will not make it so.