[DouglasKC]

Go back and read post #6 again. Trying to lump abortion in with pot and porn is an apples and oranges argument. Furthermore, it's disingenuous because your forcing conservatives to resort to argue in absolutes. Pot and porn isn't as cut-and-dried as abortion is. Just because we oppose abortion doesn't mean pot and porn should be banned too.

If you're arguing from a states rights perspective it does. To be consistent abortion, pot and porn should all be states rights issues. Yet the only one defined as an issue of liberty and freedom is pot. I'm just saying attack the fedgovs position on porn and abortion as much as you do pot. Post about how abortion should be a state right. Tell us about how the federal government shouldn't be telling women what do to because it's not their purview.

I'm at least consistent. I think the fedgov should make the decision on all these things and they should decide to ban them because they're harmful to people and dangerous to society. Of course they won't do that. Too many people have drank the kool aid and believe that accepting and tolerating evil is "freedom" when it's just the opposite.

But Douglas, pot is very prevalent and it's already illegal. I mean, what are you going to do? Wouldn't it better if it was regulated with strict laws for abuse or buying for minors, education about its use like the "Just Say No?"

So you concede it's dangerous? If not then why have strict laws for abuse? Why not let minors have it? Why educate against it? And if it's so dangerous why legitimize by legalizing it?

All three have been in existence since our nation's founding. States were permitting abortion even in the 1800s. There was never a time when abortion was completely banned in this country. Of course I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying that the notion of America always being pure and pristine is false.

Things like abortion, porn and pot were held in check by religion and morality. Sure there have always been amoral and immoral people. But the standards of American society have traditionally been higher than their standards. Today though we have to embrace the lowest common denominator or risk being called judgmental, homophobic or jack booted thugs.

[Mr. Blonde]

If you're arguing from a states rights perspective it does. To be consistent abortion, pot and porn should all be states rights issues.

Don't most people concede that if Roe v. Wade was overturned it would again give states the right to regulate abortion? This is a Web site where most if not all are pro-life which means they take the next logical step that it should be banned by all states. Or maybe I'm reading everyone wrong and they want congress to regulate based on the commerce clause. I prefer the state's to have more power, but that hasn't been the popular reading of the constitution for 70 years.

Pornography is to a certain degree regulated by the state. Oklahoma has some pretty strict laws regulating the sale of pornography. Of course all that means is within a mile of every border there is an adult video store. It can't be entirely a state issue because it is also a first amendment issue. The first amendment has been incorporated and applies to the states. They are free to regulate as long as it doesn't violate the first amendment, or as long as everyone in the state is fine with with the regulation and doesn't bring suit.

In the case of medical marijuana it is a state's rights issue to most people because it is used within a state and doesn't leave the state. At least in theory of course. The Supreme Court ruled differently and so that is the law of the land. If there were legalization it would not be a state's rights issue as it would most definitely fall under the commerce clause. Presumably the state's would get some say in regulation within their borders the same as with alcohol.

So you concede it's dangerous? If not then why have strict laws for abuse? Why not let minors have it? Why educate against it? And if it's so dangerous why legitimize by legalizing it?

Driving a car is dangerous. I would say per capita much more dangerous than smoking marijuana. We legitimize it by not making driving illegal. Yet it is still regulated by maximum speed limits, minimum speed limits, lower age limits, etc. I'm sure you know the rules of the road. Life is dangerous. Government can't and shouldn't protect us from every danger in life. If the danger is faced by one person they should be free to decide to take it on. It is only when the risk to society is great and outweighs people's right to liberty that government should step in. I see no evidence that the risk to society posed by marijuana is enough to justify prohibition. Especially when so many people seem to be helped by using marijuana as a pain killer.