25th March 2010, 9:27 PM
Unreadphilosophy Wrote:That's bullshit. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to regulate pot.
"Regulation" can also mean legalizing its recreational use in controlled conditions, but I digress. The Constitution doesn't have to outline what drugs should be illegal and when and why and how. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 already does it.
I'm not sure I even see your point. Drug policy doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution, unless you twist it into a context of free speech or the 4th amendment.
In any case, my point was more that this sort of thing has to happen at a state level before the executive or legislative branches will even acknowledge it. I mean, marijuana policy reform has been one of the top questions voted for in the online polls that Obama's administration has conducted, and they've always been laughed off or ignored. I'm not saying I'm surprised by the White House's reaction, nor am I saying that I consider marijuana policy to be anywhere near top priority; it's more that any change of course towards drug policy would be political suicide for any ambitious politician to seriously endorse (unless its a variation between treatment and rehabilitation vs. harsh jail sentences).
Alright, some congressmen have supported regulation and taxation, such as Barney Frank, but the topic is far too controversial to decide anything on the federal level at this point. Once, say, I don't know, more than 70% of states have marijuana either decriminalized or legal, there might be some talk, but that's a far way off. State policy is all we really have to look forward to in the near future.
ABF: What's the use in wasting law enforcement resources in targetting a drug that's not worse than either alcohol or tobacco? People will grow, sell, and smoke marijuana no matter what you do. You can either waste time and money arresting people and destroying crops, or you can put it into the control of the market. This takes the money out of the hands of criminals and organized crime and allows us to have some control over it, such as age restrictions, and more easily identifying and treating addicts.
Despite the fact that drug prohibition is a failure, I could see having an idealistic view that we should at least try to combat a drug problem. But why not save our energy for more destructive drugs? Why ignore the advantages of ending marijuana prohibition? I see your point that "just because weed might not be as bad as alcohol or tobacco, doesn't mean we should legalize it", but again, if prohibition is a failure already, what's the point?