[IncPen]

  How about this: Tell me where the FedGov is allowed to make it illegal to grow and smoke pot? And are the arguments that the FedGov IS allowed to do so any stronger than the arguments they use to infringe the RKBA?

I believe that most states also outlaw the growing, use and selling of drugs because they're bad for people and bad for society and people who don't use drugs pay the consequences of people who do.

As to your second point, being that the 2nd Amendment (that is, the second thing that the framers saw fit to include in the Constitution) dealt with the arming of the populace, I think you've answered your own question. The framers didn't mention pot, cocaine, heroin, etc.

Or try this on for size: Is Ritalin more or less harmful than pot?

Ask your doctor about Ritalin, I wouldn't hazard a guess. My experience with marijuana leads me to be of the opinion that it's best left as it is.

Or how about this: Is that wet spot in your backyard a federally protectable wetland? If not, why not?

Funny you should mention this. My family and I successfully fought off the greens and the feds on this very issue in my very yard. We prevailed for a number of reasons.

One day you may find the Drug War in inconsistent with conservatism. Until then, stay safe, stay armed.

I do find it odd that a branch of anarchy has wrapped itself in the cloak of conservatism and comes to us with this proto-libertarian ideal of "no WOD = no consequences". It's a flawed premise on its face, and until you and Mr LeRoy (FR's own WOD-obsessive) can present a logical reasoning as to why we should drop the gates and let the drugs in, I'll respectfully (for the most part) disagree.

Until you do, it's a bunch of utopian yapping based on a childlike version of "let's pretend".

One thing I've noticed about the pro-dopers is a consistent inability to stay on topic. Now please answer my question at #47...

[eno_]

Well, the IInd is very important, but what is the IXth? Chopped liver? Perhaps you, unlike most Drug Warriors, are happy to leave this issue to the states. That would be fine with me, too. Heck, if Utah wants to outlaw booze, let them have at it, which also has no explicit protections in the Constitution. (Do you know why that makes no difference?)

I think you are dodging this question. Sure, there are a lot of reasons to think smoking lots of pot is a bad idea, but the question was meant to put it in perspective: Is it worse than the beer advertized on TV? Is it worse than the Ritalin forced on school kids? It would be interesting to know what you think about this.

As you know, the environment is the most precious gift we have. I find your resistence to the good people trying to protect that environment disturbing. Perhaps they should take another look at your wetland. You may be a federal criminal and not know it.

[TightSqueeze]

...drop the gates and let the drugs in...

You know what they say, location, location, location. By stating letting the drugs in, just what are we talking about here, from your kid bedroom to yours, from your neighbors house to your living room, from Iowa to Maine or from Russia to the USA?

[THEUPMAN]

The framers didn't mention pot, cocaine, heroin, etc.

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.

just thought I'd point this out ....