Marijuana legalization at State Level (1 Viewer)

Obviously, everyone is aware of the news in Colorado and Washington, where voters have successfully made it legal to own and recreationally use marijuana. The federal government has insisted it is still federally illegal and they will prosecute at the federal level, even small amounts as possession.

What do you guys think about this? What role does federal government have in banning marijuana use at the state level? Does the Constitution grant them this right or should states be allowed to set their own laws?

I've always been one that believed strongly the war on drugs should not exist. States should be responsible for enforcing and passing their own laws regarding drugs. The war on drugs costs our government way too much money. At the same time, and although I don't smoke myself, I've always believe marijuana should be legalized. Stop incriminating recreational use. Reserve the prisons for people far more deserving and tax it! You want to solve an economical crisis? With the money saved on enforcement and the money created with tax, it would go a long way at both the federal and state level and take away a major cash crop from illegal drug dealers. Where's the loss in regulating it like alcohol? Not to mention, in a world where the federal government continues to take away state rights and the individual civil rights the Constitution guarantees us, I think this is one they should leave alone. The people spoke and voted, who is the federal government to intervene? Are they going to arrest them all under NDAA now?

Those are my two cents. What do you think?

When a product is made Illegal, we create a new income stream for criminals.

Prohibition caused more problems then it was supposed to resolve.
Now, rather then Tax Payers pay to run around after Boot Legers, Tax is collected by the Govt on alcohol usage.

Education is the only sustainable way to reduce addiction to such as Tobacco, Weed, Big Macs, Alcohol and many others.

Vassago said:

What do you guys think about this? What role does federal government have in banning marijuana use at the state level? Does the Constitution grant them this right or should states be allowed to set their own laws?

Click to expand...

I think it should be legalized and taxed. But yes, the Constitution does grant this authority to the federal government.

I imagine marijuana legalization and marriage equality will follow the same pattern. Individual states will begin to permit it, until a significant number have done it on their own. Then the federal government will step in and make it legal nation wide, forcing the southern red states to get with the times.

The red states will whine, threaten to secede from the Union, remember what happened last time they tried that, and then eventually accept it.

Then the cycle will repeat its self with the next issue, perhaps prostitution, other types of drugs, stripping churches of their tax exempt status, etc.

Adam Caramon said:

But yes, the Constitution does grant this authority to the federal government.

Click to expand...

Please explain how you believe that the Federal government has this authority.

Adam Caramon said:

I imagine marijuana legalization and marriage equality will follow the same pattern.

Click to expand...

"marriage equality" is not a fundamental right based on the Constitution, it is an "expansive" right derived through interpretation. I have no issue with "civil contracts" between people that provide the same benefits/obligations as marriage.

Now that many acknowledge the legitimacy of "marriage equality"; the Mormons should once again be able to legally have multiple wives and not be persecuted for that reason.

An issue with "expansive" rights, were will they end? By extension, group marriages or other forms non-traditional of marriage should be legal under "marriage equality".

Why not take control of drugs away from "crooks" and put it under control of "government". Look how well it has worked for gambling, liquor, tobacco, banks, etc...

Steve R. said:

Please explain how you believe that the Federal government has this authority.

"marriage equality" is not a fundamental right based on the Constitution, it is an "expansive" right derived through interpretation. I have no issue with "civil contracts" between people that provide the same benefits/obligations as marriage.

Now that many acknowledge the legitimacy of "marriage equality"; the Mormons should once again be able to legally have multiple wives and not be persecuted for that reason.

An issue with "expansive" rights, were will they end? By extension, group marriages or other forms non-traditional of marriage should be legal under "marriage equality".

Click to expand...

Why not? If they want to marry multiple wives, and be that miserable, so be it! My whole argument has always been, either the federal government recognizes marriage for EVERYONE and grants the equal benefits to all, such as gay married couples where a spouse is in the military, or they don't recognize it for ANYONE and take away any benefits included with that. That's only been my point that there are not equal rights included without marriage equality.

And yes, I would like to know how the federal government has this authority under the Constitution to prohibit... well... any personal choices such as smoking weed. It pissed me off enough when we lost clove cigarettes because the government believed they were a gateway to teen smoking... Really? When I was in high school, everyone smoked Newports or Marlboro Reds, both still on the market. No one even knew what a clove or flavored cigarettes were.

I know Marriage is a little off topic but I thought the word Marriage should be reserved for heterosexual relationships until I watched a documentary where it showed churches only adopted the word Marriage in the last few hundred years.
Also, Marriage is used for many other Unions such as two businesses and the churches don't seem to worry when this is done.

Can churches claim ownership of all descriptive words they use ? No. So why the big deal on this one word that they themselves did not allways use ?

PNGBill said:

I know Marriage is a little off topic ...

Click to expand...

Not really. Both the issue of marijuana legalization and the ability of gays to utilize marriage privilege involve the extent of civil liberties and the extent of Federal government control in one's personal life.

Marijuana is an issue where the Federal government was able to assert police power control over drugs. When, I do not know. Furthermore, prior to the Federal government getting control over recreational drugs, was marijuana subject to State control? Again, I do not know.

But in terms of gay marriage, we are seeing the concept of marriage being moved from local legislative control to Federal legislative control. So one could hypothesize that marriage is following the marijuana trajectory of moving from local legislative control to Federal legislative control.

Laws (to a degree) are supposed to be reflective of social norms. Both gay marriage and marijuana are being considered increasingly acceptable by the public. So it would appear time for the laws to reflect this. (Personally, marriage is between a woman and a man. Gays would have the option of "civil contracts".)

Finally, there is the constitutional question of whether the Federal government should even be involved in regulating personal behavior, which would include both marijuana and marriage.

Vassago said:

If they want to marry multiple wives, and be that miserable, so be it!

Click to expand...

Why would they be miserable?

In NZ we have the same argument regarding same sex Marriage except in the US you have the added issue of State / Federal authority to decide which is really a different Can of Worms to the base argument.

Our one Govt in NZ does have advantages but of course, we would fit into a suburb of New York by population and a lot of states by size

Steve R. said:

Why would they be miserable?

Click to expand...

It's marriage! Why wouldn't they be?

Once when touring in Jordan our guide was asked how many wives he was permitted
4
How many do you have?
1
Why only 1?
It's bad enough being nagged by 1 , just thing about being nagged by more.

It's a true story , honest.

Brian

Steve R. said:

Please explain how you believe that the Federal government has this authority.

Click to expand...

Take your pick - General Welfare clause or Necessary and Proper clause.

Steve R. said:

"marriage equality" is not a fundamental right based on the Constitution, it is an "expansive" right derived through interpretation. I have no issue with "civil contracts" between people that provide the same benefits/obligations as marriage.

Click to expand...

Marriage is never mentioned in the constitution at all. So if marriage equality is an expansive right, then so is marriage its self.

Steve R. said:

Now that many acknowledge the legitimacy of "marriage equality"; the Mormons should once again be able to legally have multiple wives and not be persecuted for that reason.

An issue with "expansive" rights, were will they end? By extension, group marriages or other forms non-traditional of marriage should be legal under "marriage equality".

Click to expand...

Why are you so concerned with how other people live their lives? As long as there wasn't any additional tax incentives for marrying 2 or 3 people, I don't see the problem.