I’ve always been for a limited central government to allow people at a local level to determine what is in their best interests. Unfortunately, Washington, D.C. has an insatiable appetite for power and control. Plus, politicians are afraid to lose votes by telling the populace that it’s not the job of the government to take care of them from cradle to grave–so, they continue to take more control of lives.

On the matter of marijuana laws specifically, I really would have to read the legal arguments presented from both sides. However, I generally find myself in agreement with Justice Scalia, who tends to favor following the original intent of laws rather than bend them. I do not accept the concept of a “living constitution.”

From a personal and moral approach, I do not favor legalization of drugs, and I recognize that liquor prohibition resulted in many positives with families and personal lives. I don’t smoke, drink, or use drugs. I’ve seen what it has done to others, and I have no interest in being tempted to ruin my life.

Democrats and Libertarians come together in favor of liberalizing drug laws. As a conservative, I would oppose drug use. However, I would not use the power of an armed federal goverment to do that. Leave more decisions up to the states, but also make the states responsible for consequences.

The commerce clause has been extended to ridiculous extremes, without my going into detail. This nation is a union of states, but the federal government no longer feels that it should answer to the states. (The state legislatures used to elect Senators.) At least we still have the Electoral College to represent the states, even though that gets attacked by whoever loses.

I enjoyed the discussion and must say that it’s one of the few in which someone didn’t tell me to have intercourse with myself.

I’ve already acknowledged that the Supreme court has ruled in favor of the DEA’s right to raid dispensaries. I happen disagree with their interpretation of the law. I also noted that the most conservative justice, Scalia, dissented in the relevant case, because he felt the federal government was overreaching and that to rule in their favor amounts to what you have termed “judicial activism” in the face of a power clearly designated to the states. What I’m interested in is YOUR opinion. You have previously stated your distaste for judicial activism on these pages.

Do YOU think that in this case the court is in the case engaging in “judicial activism”? If yes, do you support judicial activism in this case.

Do YOU generally support a broad interpretation of the “commerce clause”?

You say that it wasn’t enforced earlier, but it was enforced. It’s just that others later decided to give it a new interpretation. Separate but equal was constitutional until that was changed by the courts in the 1950’s.

The example of treason is one in which the feds do limit “rights,” which is what I said that they do. It doesn’t matter how it is done.

The feds involve themselves over alcohol through prohibition, ending prohibition, taxing alcohol, busting up stills, requiring that the product be kept to certain standards of sanitation and meet labeling requirement, etc. If the ACLU wasn’t so busy getting the Ten Commandments tossed out of public buildings, they would probably be working to get beer sold on Sundays.

Note that it is the feds who have taken Michael Vick to the Grand Jury for dog fighting after the local and state gave it a pass.

The feds do involve themselves in everyday life. They don’t allow the states to keep any powers that they want–which is just about everything.

I don’t have to lay out the constitutional basis for federal involvement in marijuana. They do it and no one, not even the ACLU, has come up with a supportable case to stop them. It seems that the burden is on you or marijuana supporters to explain why it is unconsitutional and to stop the feds. However, that issue has been addressed by courts and the feds are still allowed to do it and are doing it.

Believe me, it wasn’t people like me who encouraged the federal government to take over state duties and to extend its role as a nanny state. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it is for me, who thinks that one should be able to read and write to vote, and for you, who thinks that marijuana should be legal.

However, I accept it rather than encourage lawless resistance. You could always move.

- San Francisco couldn’t legalize treason because it specifically designated as a crime in the constitution.

- The constitution does not protect or ban the possession of alcohol. Neither does, I suspect, you state constitution. Therefore, your county is well within in rights to introduce an ordinance regulating it.

Lets simplify.

- Please lay out for me, a constitutional basis for federal regulation of medical marijuana.

Why the U.S. (thanks to Jimmy Carter) thinks that the federal government even has the right to decide policies of school boards elected by local and state citizens. There is no power that the federal government will reserve to states anymore if the feds want it.

LotS, it’s not about scientific proof about marijuana. Isn’t it about “consensus,” or so the Al Gore types claim on another issue. You can come up with whatever study that you want to “prove” whatever you want. My first hand observations, however, have been that people who use heavy drugs first tried marijuana. Once one high becomes commonplace, there is a tendency to move to the next step up.