Its still against federal law. Big whoop.
There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.
Originally Posted by PogueMoran
I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.
What you really need to look at is the supremacy clause.
That is, though a state may not make it illegal, it can still be illegal under federal law.
The federal government clearly has the power to regulate interstate commerce and intrastate commerce that affects interstane commerce. If that power applies to the wheat a farmer would like to keep for his own personal use (which it does) then it applies to intra-state pot.Powers reserved to the states or to the people!
Last edited by Goobieman; 03-26-10 at 01:40 PM.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
Drugs are dangerous to the user and to people close to the user. Many families have had financial struggles because of a drug habit. Many jobs have been lost because of a drug habit. And many relationship have failed because of a drug habit either by the user or someone close to the user. It's similar to how alcohol can destroy if one becomes an alcoholic. The issue though is that most drugs are more potent than a beer and aren't as damaging physically.Drugs are dangerous to whom? How?I don't think all drugs need to be criminalized, each substance is an issue of it's own. As of now I don't really have an opinion of criminalizing or decriminalizing certain drugs. However I support less punishments for marijuana use and lighter sentences to drug addicts. However, drugs like crack, heroine, LCD, and others should remain illegal. They are unhealthy for the user, they are bad for society, and it's abusing a substance.Give me the wise reasons for maintaining their criminal status.
The morality of drug criminalization is preventing discord in society and from people destroying themselves through drug use. Is it good to have more crack addicts or heroine addicts? Should we have more deaths and addictions related to drug use? What about motor skills? Having drugs legalized on a large scale will increase usage, which will also increase vehicle wrecks due to substance abuse (like alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs).What is the morality of drug criminalization?
Why is it better to criminalize drugs when the harm done from criminalizing them is greater than the harm done using them?[/QUOTE]
So how long until marijuana ads appear during the Super Bowl?
I'll split soft drugs and hard drugs.
*Hard Drugs* We are talking coke, crack, meth and heroin - highly addictive substances. You can OD on these. Heavy users have weight problems and perhaps other problems I am unaware of. I believe they can be temporarily debilitating to your health. I don't think it is permanent. Driving under the influence can be deadly.
I don't know what you mean by drugs being harmful emotionally/relationally.
*Hard Drugs* I am going to argue that hard drugs should be legal. They don't harm other people, therefore they should not be criminal. Abuse of them harms other people but that is a separate issue. Keeping them criminal creates crime and criminal enterprises which is the real harm to society. We should legalize them in order to treat them as a health problem and not a criminal problem. By legalizing, we remove the criminal element from distribution.
I agree with what you are saying. Is it what you meant to say? When you include the harm done by crime and criminal enterprises due to drug criminalization, then the harm done criminalizing them IS greater than the harm done using them. We should legalize them to remove the criminal element and deal with drugs as a health problem. This applies to soft and hard drugs.Why is it better to criminalize drugs when the harm done from criminalizing them is greater than the harm done using them?