Because, according to the 10th, it IS a state's decision about such. Or should be, until SCOTUS decides that words mean what they wish them to mean.
Reread my post. The 10th Amendment does NOT make smoking pot a right. You can argue that there is no federal case if the pot is grown and consumed within a given state, but the 10th Amendment does not prohibit the states from passing such laws.
I'm always fascinated to hear that the founders, ratifiers, and citizens of the first 200 years were simply ignorant of what the Constitution actually said.
Gawd, I hate the smell of 10th Amendment igorance in the evening. It smells like ... ignorance.
The 10th Amendment does NOT make pot smoking a right, as you noted, but for the WRONG REASONS. It simply says that the fedgov DOES NOT HAVE A VOICE IN THE MATTER. If a state says you have the right to smoke pot within their jurisdiction, the FEDGOV IS SUPPOSED TO BE SILENT under the 10th.
But, like so many self-professed limited government conservatives, you say you want limited government - as long as the concept does not limit what you want government to do.
dirtboy:
Well, you unfortuately have a real problem with the 10th amendment, then. Because, according to the 10th, it IS a state's decision about such. Or should be, until SCOTUS decides that words mean what they wish them to mean.
S-man:
Reread my post. The 10th Amendment does NOT make smoking pot a right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Smoking ANYthing is an unenumerated right under the 9th Amendment. -- A right that can be 'reasonably regulated' by State & local gov'ts, -- but not outright prohibited.
The 10th Amendment limits fed/state/local governments from using those powers prohibited in the rest of the Constitution & Amendments.
Gov't must use only powers delegated to them by the people, who have limited themselves in the power to infringe on each others individual rights.
-- IE -- 'I won't try to suppress your liberty, if you don't try to suppress mine'; -- is the basic [much abused] Law of the Land.