[Bishop_Malachi]

Even if the referendum fails, they can just shop around for a judge who’ll declare recreational pot use to be a “Constitutional right”. The precedent is already tried and tested.

[fr_freak]

Even if the referendum fails, they can just shop around for a judge who’ll declare recreational pot use to be a “Constitutional right”. The precedent is already tried and tested.

The Left has used that route to pursue some disgusting things, like forcing gay marriage on everyone, but, ironically, in this instance, finding a Constitutional right to support state legalization of marijuana would be a just and original interpretation of the US Constitution.

What power does the US Constitution grant the federal government to regulate people's individual behavior? I'll answer that for you - none. The idea that fedgov can tell individual citizens that they can't grow a plant or smoke it is incredibly repugnant to the original intent and to the concept of freedom in general. The fallacious, left-wing interpretation of the commerce clause by the USSC is the only reason fedgov can tell people what plants they can grow for their own use, and there is NOTHING, not even that diabolical court case, that gives them the power to restrict individual drug use of ANY kind.

The state of California, like the others, can make pot legal or illegal if it wants. If the citizens of the state of California want it legal, the fedgov should have nothing to say. So, if there is found some "right" by the USSC of the states to legalize marijuana, I would welcome the decision, and then gleefully apply the logic to EVERYTHING.

[a fool in paradise]

The “Constitutional right” line will be used when employers enforced their ban on pot use even in a “legalized” America.

Yet tobacco is banned by some employers (even in the off hours because of insurance costs) and I see no major court cases.