Posted on 08/28/2006 7:29:35 AM PDT by tang0r
It turns out that alcohol is legal for the simplest, most nostalgic, and most American reason of all. Despite its risks and harmful side-effects, adults are reserved right to drink because they are independent adults in a free country. For all of the empty rhetoric about economics and black markets, the end of Prohibition was due to a single principle: even if drinking may be bad for society, government has no right to keep the people from doing it. The ability to get drunk is an inalienable right that we have forever confirmed with the 18th Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at prometheusinstitute.net ...
Still batting zero.
I didn't use to think that way but I believe it should be made legal but apply the same standards that we do with alcohol.
For instance, pubic drunkness is against the law as is driving under the influence so being high on pot in public should be against the law and driving high should be too.
I am tired of seeing these police departments spending all this money on chasing pot smokers.
Diggity
PS I don't smoke pot.
Pualey, Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". It does not have the power to regulate that which may affect commerce. Sorry.
Mojave, Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". It does not have the power to regulate that which may affect commerce. Sorry.
Broken cut and paste?
Mojave, Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". It does not have the power to regulate that which may affect commerce. Sorry.
"[T]he New Deal Court’s own constitutional justification for its radical expansion of the scope of federal power over commerce was that the congressional measures in question were valid exercises of the power granted by the Necessary and Proper Clause and were not direct exercises of the power to regulate commerce among the several states. That is, the Court did not simply and directly enlarge the scope of the Commerce Clause itself, as is often believed. Rather, it upheld various federal enactments as necessary and proper means to achieve the legitimate objective of regulating interstate commerce."
-- Stephen Gardbaum, Rethinking Constitutional Federalism, 74 Tex. L. Rev. 795, 807-08 (1996)
Pualey, Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". It does not have the power to regulate that which may affect commerce. Sorry.
He's stuck on stupid.
He's stuck on stupid.
Mojave, Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". It does not have the power to regulate that which may affect commerce. Sorry.
Pualey, Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". It does not have the power to regulate that which may affect commerce. Sorry.
If you're coordinated enough to pass a roadside sobriety test, how worried should we be that you're driving? I hadn't heard that breathalyzers sharply reduced accidents or fatalities.
The plain language of the Constitution is to the contrary. Poor you.
You're right about potheads. Our family has some trouble with one stoner. The story continues.
Already answered: if only one side has any facts or logic to present, I'm confident that many opinions will change.
I am not going to change my mind about legalizing drugs.
So after one failed attempt to argue in support of your position, your fingers go right back in your ears? Sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.