So stiffer laws against selling a substance need to exist because people who want to harm themselves might actually accomplish it? Honestly, what is the big deal? If kids, or anyone, want to get high, and they do, and people want to sell drugs, and they do, what is the problem? It sounds like the perfect, victimless transaction. Why stomp on free trade and liberty in such a way? I've heard of welfare supporting liberals, but supporting this form of anti-drug legislation goes far, FAR to the left of liberal/modern democrat. More along the lines of forced social engineering. You might as well grow a mustache and change your name to Stalin."Better" is an opinion. Obviously, someone who wants to get high considers that to be the better option. Why should the government force what they believe is "better" upon on everyone?Well, alright, maybe it does. Who cares? Why is it the government's place to force people to not have a "who gives a fuck" attitude?

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

Looks like the old 'interstate commerce clause' is getting another workout. That thing must be getting rather stretched out of shape these days. One can hardly recognize the origin of it.

Rather amusing coming from so-called Constitutional originalists!

But then again, intellectual consistency (or the rule of law) has never been the hallmark of the GW Bush administration.

That's all well and fine for your own personal opinion.

But when you seek to make that law, you are legislating morality.

And legislating morality always has 'unintended consequences'.

Indeed, it can be argued that pot has become popular due to previous attempts to legislate morality regarding alcohol.

And past/present efforts to legislate morality with pot may be argued to have caused the rise in crack/cocaine consumption.

One cannot legislate morality - it doesn't work and it produces unintended consequences that may be worse.

I am talking about kids...especially with today's AWOL parents, kids need protection from those that seek to exploit them. If you care about your nation, than protecting it's future seems pretty important to me.

What America's current (and future) federal stance on the deadly weed marijuana boils down to:

Build more prisons
Increase pressure on the already deluged judicial system
Increase DEA bureaucratic size and influence
Tie more federal assistance to local LE to drug enforcement
Eliminate states rights
Encourage criminal cartel development

When it comes to learning by historical experience the US lags far behind the rest of the civilized world, the Volstead Act being a perfect example.

You speak of protecting our children yet, the legal system is against that as well.
I am currently a cab driver (long story) and I recently picked up a guy from the prison to take him home.
He told me his story regarding the reason for his detention, which is this...

He lives in an apartment building with his wife and 14 year old son.
The guy across the hall from them sold some pot to his 14 year old son.
When he found out about this, he confronted the guy in the hallway where an argument ensued.
One thing led to another and the Father ended up spitting in the other guys face out of anger and frustration.
The Father was then arrested and charged with ASSAULT, spent the next 60 days in jail and lost his job due to this incident.

Yep, our judicial system protects parents against those who sell drugs all right !

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission

As far as protecting kids is concerned, if pot were legal and regulated, kids would have less access to it. Sell it the same way liquer is sold, through licensed establishments. Who's more likely to check an ID - the pusher in an alley, or a licensed businessman who stands to lose his livelyhood?

It would be nice to be able to go to "Ben's Spirits and Smokes" to pick up a pack of Columbos.

It's a known fact that any kid of any age can obtain marijuana with far less effort than obtaining a can of beer. It sounds like your definition of protecting the future is imposing your sense of morality on a substance that will be used, legally or illegally. What about legalization to eliminate the profit motivation and ridiculous LE enforcement expense of morality legislation and charging parents with the responsibility of imposing whatever morality guidelines they prefer for whatever reasons?

Far too logical for those Americans who consider weed a sin. When it comes to sin, age is not a consideration.

The question I keep coming back to is; How can Mankind rule that a creation of GOD was wrong and should be forbidden ?

Didn't GOD create and bring forth Marijuana, Poppy, Peyote, Mushrooms, Coca ?

Is mankind arrogant enough to determine GOD was wrong when he created these lifeforms ?

__________________

So this is how liberty ends... with thunderous applause
In a Democracy, Silence is Permission

The possibility of DEA knocking down your door and imprisoning you for possession of one of those natural commodities should be evidence enough of society's arrogance. But you can buy and drink distilled 180-proof grain alcohol to your heart's content.

its a law period. if you dont like it get it changed. federal law supercedes state laws.

Alcohol was once illegal too they got that changed.

Dont complain about the raids that are legal. make them a thing of the past if you dont like them.

One thing to say is change the law another to say they are illegal is blatantly false.

I think they should legalize and tax it :P

im sure they could put it towards hillary care. a joint could cost 20 dollars and they could arrest anyone that wont buy goverment weed and line them up and shoot them for taking away childrens health care

that last was in jest :P

__________________
Hardcore Conservative !

I said Conservative not necessarly Republican or Democrat. Liberals are in both of those parties.

I can understand the "enforcing the law" argument. The part I don't understand why the drug laws seem so impossible to change. To suggest a fresh approach is apparently political suicide.

Meanwhile, this otherwise law abiding taxpayer is going to clean a bowl (if it were legal, it would be pre-cleaned ) and smoke it in the privacy of my home. Anyone (over 18) is welcome to join along.

The bureaucratic power of DEA and the war on drugs has become so immense it involves the military (Columbia), judicial appointments by partisan office holders, the Christian Right, and slurping at the public trough civil servant careers. To take on that concentration of power requires political suicide.

You need a friend with a medical marijuana license. That way you'd be smoking nothing but primo sensimillia at far below street prices for hay requiring cleaning.

When politically convenient.

They being a portion of America's elite who made fortunes under the Volstead Act?

By being arrested?

Beyond my comprehension.

Too logical. It's obvious that US leadership dismisses logic.

I'm sure expenses for the DEA, judicial proceedings and military involvement in Columbia have already driven the cost to the general public far higher than $20/joint.