[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Since it's the commerce clause of the US constitution what you are saying is "The Constitution is unconstitutional". How do you reconcile such illogic?

Oh I agree. This is definately socalism. To support freedom, democracy, and non-socialism you must support California's right to legalize pot.

So do you think California should be allowed to leaglize pot? Do you think a state should be allowed to legalize homosexual marriage?

What I find funny about this is the actual state of things currently. Seriously, I know of "medical dispensaries" that sell to minors for a headache.

And I support CA's right to legalize pot, and think the ruling in that wheat case is truly ludicrous. (Essentially, owning an apple tree and eating fruit from it could be deemed interfering with interstate commerce using the rationale they used.) I also don't actually support legalization of pot beyond medical use. Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. I would like to see it regulated as strictly as tobacco, which it currently is not. (maybe legally it is, but I am referring to enforced law)

If there was/is a legitimate medical usage, I'd support heroin for medical usage. (It was after all invented by Bayer) But I do think if they do legalize it, I would want some basic quality control in production. I have seen people get pretty messed up with stuff laced into weed without their knowledge.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by ethan_hanus

I've seen the consequences of drugs, even something as "harmless" as weed, I've watched it destroy many of my friends lives. It always starts small, then works it's way up to the big stuff.

I agree with you that it always starts small and works its way up.

But that doesn't mean that every time something starts small it works its way up.

You can't drive to Alaska without going through Canada, but that doesn't mean you'll drive to Alaska every time you drive to Canada.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

If there was/is a legitimate medical usage, I'd support heroin for medical usage.

Fun fact: diamorphine and heroin are one in the same.

I think Prop 19 is good for a number of reasons but the main one is that there is no good reason to waste time and resources locking up and prosecuting cannabis users, recreational or otherwise. And frankly the law seems to be enforced inequitably.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by ethan_hanus

I've seen the consequences of drugs, even something as "harmless" as weed, I've watched it destroy many of my friends lives. It always starts small, then works it's way up to the big stuff.

This seems to answer a question different from the one I asked.

I didn't ask if you felt California *should* leagalize pot, I asked if you supported that it *could*.

You said no.

That's fine: but it means that you disagree with the constitutional concept of states rights. In short: you believe that the federal government should exercise direct authority over actions within a state.

Homosexual marriage, I just find the whole concept of it just odd. It's completely unnatural, and illogical. God didn't design us to be gay, neither did nature if you don't believe in God. You can provide me with all the proof you want to, my logic is, two of the same don't make a baby.

What does making babies have to do with marriage? Do you believe that a sterile person should not be allowed to wed?

Actually: Never mind that question. It's irrellevnt. Let me know why you dislike the constitution so much though.