That protects free speech bud. and the ninth is equal protection. If you have a point i wish you'd make it instead of beating around the bush. Theres really nothing in the Constitution for pot or against it. Its one of those nasty grey areas where current public thought determines what we do about it.

It is only a gray area for those who have not read their Constitution. Drugs are a form of Commerce to be regulated and taxed among the several States of the Union.

There is a long legal precedent of the Government outlawing things it doesn't approve of. They can regulate it without allowing it. Its illegal, its regulated.

Again if you want to make a change youre going to need lots of public support to prod the congresscritters with.

Man, you are like a broken record.

Pot is illegal.

Alcohol is legal.

How does what you posted differentiate between the 2?

Why is one legal and the other illegal?

That's the point I am trying to establish. The several States of the Union have already repealed the only delegate power to Prohibit Commerce among the several States. In other words, that power is no longer delegated or enumerated to the general government of the Union.

Regulation, by custom and tradition, is taxed to defray that expense; otherwise, there is no guarantee that it was regulated.

They repealed prohibition cause they wanted to drink outside of a speak easy, plain and simple. If you want drug prohibition to end youve gotta get similar popular support. Thats going to require erasing the stigma. And beating your congresscritter about the head and shoulders with petitions

This implies that morality dictates law. Personally, I think it's a lot more common that law dictates morality. By and large, smoking of marijuana is and was commonly thought of as immoral only following the propaganda and antics of Anslinger and company (apart from the Carrie Nation types, anyway).

People assume, for the most part, that the government passes laws to help citizens and make their lives better. Ergo, anyone running afoul of those laws is trying to do the opposite, and thus immoral.

The flip side of this is that the best way to remove the stigma around drugs is for the government to legalize them. To most people, this will mean that there's suddenly been a revelation and it turns out formerly immoral behavior is now perfectly acceptable.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Right. But it does take popular support to get the law passed. Thus some changing of the stigma must take place BEFORE the law can be passed.

Chicken and the egg. Exactly so.

I would submit that there are other ways to get laws changed, besides popular support. For instance, a SCOTUS declaration of prohibition laws to be unconstitutional would work. Or, sufficient lobby interest would probably do the trick.

I'm not saying that these are likely, but there are other ways to skin a cat.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Lobby interests are indicative of popular support.

SCOTUS decision: Theres really not alot in the Constitution about it. Thats the problem. Plus i dislike legislating from the bench.

So what? That's what drives the country's motor. And lobby dollars aren't a barometer of public support, they tend to control public support via propaganda.

Well, the framework of the constitution goes more toward restricting the government's ability to remove citizens' freedoms than it does granting the government license to do so. That is, I think the court case should have been about whether or not the constitution somehow granted federal authority the power to enact prohibition in the first place, rather than determining whether or not prohibition could be repealed under it.

If there is any real applicability of the interstate commerce clause, I see no reason that states shouldn't be left the power to allow or ban the use of various substances. I see nothing that indicates that possession of drugs ought to be any business of the federal government at all.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

There are plenty of lobbies for pot.

Interstate commerce. Keeping the peace. Promoting the General welfare is murky enough as well.
When it comes down to it it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. Its what you can make people BELIEVE it says. Without support the whole thing falls through.

Sure, but there are at least two, very very large, very very influential, and very very powerful lobbies against it.

That's your sticking point, much more so than public opinion. By and large, the public views marijuana as culturally acceptable.

I don't know about that. Codifying something into law tends to retroactively garner support.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

If he won't do it, then he should never have promised to do it. That's known as "making promises with no intention to keep them," AKA lying.Well, I guess it's too bad for Obama. If he wasn't serious about it, he should have added "just kidding!" or an "...unless it makes me look like an asshole" clause.So, you're telling Obama had no idea of any of this when he made the promises?

Because if he did know about it, it does not change the fact that he lied.Okay, so are you going anywhere with this? If that is the case, Obama should have said so: "we're never pulling out if you elect me." Or he should have at least refrained from promising the opposite of what he planned to do.You can't vote someone "out of office." You can only "not re-elect him." But let's take this further.

Let's say I lease machinery and industrial space for 4 years at the stated cost of $12,000,000. As soon as the contract is signed and I move in, I make it known that I had absolutely no intention of paying the agreed upon $12,000,000. But, since I have the keys and the equipment, I just stay there for 4 years, and make revenue of $30,000,000. The 4 years expire and I just move on.

So, what you're telling me is, the person with whom I made the agreement should:

1. NOT be allowed to take legal action against me upon my telling him I had no intention of keeping the promise (and that I won't).
2. NOT be allowed to take legal action against me after the 4 years expire and I didn't pay a cent.
3. ONLY be allowed to do so much as not agree to another 4 years of business with me?
Duh.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/1231734-post266.html

The point is that it is respect for the law by elected representatives to Government, who are given public emoluments for their good work in supporting our Constitution, that we should have moral recourse to.