As a conservative who strongly supports states' rights, I agree with you. That's why I'm having trouble reconciling my support for states' rights AND a federal marriage law.

Nothing in the Constitution gives feds the right to outlaw pot. But as you said, they may regulate it through interstate commerce. Even that might be a problem as far as a state's rights are concerned. The Commerce Clause has been read to authorize Congress to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce. That gives them the power to regulate whatever they want under the guise of interstate commerce.

What's the answer? Let the states decide the use of medical marijuana, homosexual marriage, abortion, etc.

I agree. This is one of those issues that separates us judicial conservatives from the standard issue political conservatives.

At the risk of being that "me too" guy, I just want to agree with La Shawn entirely. Such debates about whether or not to legalize this or that should be happening on a state-by-state basis. I read a post on whynot.net arguing for the repeal of the 17th amendment, in part on the grounds that - like you mentioned, Dean - people can better and more readily influence government on a local level. As part of being free is being able to help determine what sort of society it is you live in, the more decisions that are left to local government, the better.

I agree that it should be a state issue, but I don't support medical marijuana.

First of all, if it is going to be a medicinal drug doesn't it then fall under the juristiction of the FDA? Shouldn't it then be treated as any other drug and have to undergo the same challenges for safety and effecacy? I strongly doubt that it would ever get FDA approval since it is a product that has been shown to be harmful and the beneficial claims are somewhat dubious. Studies have given mixed results with few of the claims have any support in clinical trials. Even if it proves effective in those cases, are there not better products?

Does it not cause a problem to have a drug allowed and not regulated by the FDA? How do you keep that door from being opened to other drugs? How to do you ensure that drugs sold to the public are safe when you allow the approval on one that is not?

It's a messy issue, in my opinion.

Aaron, pot's been shown to be harmful, but claims of its benefits are somewhat dubious? That doesn't square with my...uh, reading. If we're talking about demonstrable harm and "benefits" people could easily live without, why not reinstate Prohibition? Perhaps you would disagree because alcohol isn't prescribed medicinally (in any formal sense), but insofar as it remains a chemical that affects physiological functions, it's certainly a drug. And it's dangers aren't all that disputable.

In any case, it's hard to argue about marijuana based on clinical trials; the expensive, double-blind, long-term types that reputable researchers prefer to base conclusions on are close to impossible to launch, given that most sources of funding aren't keen to support studies of a chemical that's currently illegal and that couldn't be patented even if it were legalized.

The Supreme Court has held that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to regulate damn near anything that has a substantial nexus to commerce, which is how laws like the Civil Rights Act are okay. Once the Commerce Clause allows the legislation, the Supremacy Clause allows the feds to pre-empt state law if they choose to do so.

Not saying I like it, just saying...

I am a very big advocate of state's rights, but then again as a libertarian you would expect that I guess. With the ease of transport these days there is a no reason why states should not be allowed to do as they please. If you don't like it then bloody leave!

I see nothing wrong with a state not allowing abortion, having a drinking age of 25 etc etc while another state is a libertine paradise. Surely not allowing states this type of freedom is limiting their ability to attract people to ther state.

"Frankly, I've long thought people who oppose medical marijuana are simply cruel and heartless."

I've always thought people who oppose marijuana legalization period are either pretty dumb, pretty nosy, or pretty naive. Does anyone really believe that people are not smoking it in huge, huge, HUGE numbers right now? And that they're paying a lot of money for it? Where does that money go? I'd like it to go into the federal or state treasury, myself. And no argument based on the old "it's bad for you" thing will win very many over. It's not your job to be my nanny (or anybody else's, except maybe your own kids).

That aside, the states hardly have any rights anymore, and it's not a good thing. I'd like to see the states get A LOT more rights than they currently seem to have. Not EVERYTHING needs to be NATIONAL, people.

And as for states' rights regarding gay marriage, that's not something you can allow to devolve to the states unless you're willing to make a gigantic exception to the full faith and credit clause. As long as that's there, all states are at the mercy of the most radical states. So basically California, Massachusetts and Hawaii will be setting huge portions of our social policy for the rest of us and there's nothing we can do about it except enact amendments to the constitution. Ain't judicial activism great?

I could... accept legalization if it meant regulation, requirement of a prescription from a physician who was certified specifically to prescribe it, etc.

But unless measures like that are taken, it's a classic case of a true slippery slope - if you simply say, "It's legal now, period", you have no - none, zero, zilch - logical ability to draw a line against doing a line, among other things.

Not that government is logical, but I like to pretend they at least try to be.

So, I can't advocate, I can maybe accept, or at least tolerate, if bound up in proper controls.

When the city council of San Francisco authorizes voting rights to non-citizens there is a big problem. When a Mayor decides to violate the very laws they swore to uphold there is another problem. When the Governor of Illinois decides to nullify hundreds of capital murder verdicts there is another problem. Solving issues, big issues by letting states decide on their own simply creates the red state and the blue state syndrome. I prefer that all states fly the american flag in its present colors, stars, and stripes.

"What in the entire Constitution gives the feds authority to outlaw pot--for any reason? "

Answer: Representative government and the right of Congress to pass laws.

I'd buy pot if I could, legally. And I'm a powdered white wig conservative. My political philosophy is oriented to personal freedom.

Live and let live.

The tobacco lobby is strongly opposed to ANY leeway with regards to legalizing marijuana. After all, it is harmful to your health. While the tobacco industry contributes to both political parties, they are living in the GOP backyard and washing their car and cutting their grass (no pun intended).

Also opposed to this legislation are law enforcement, and drug dealers and cartels.

Reason number 67,892 why Tim the Soldier will never NEVER vote republican (well, with the exception of John McCain).

Are you suggesting the tobacco industry has no and would have no commercial interest in the marijuana
industry and is actually opposed to that notion ?

And if it were possible to control specific uniform dosage of such mj cigarettes, that that wouldn't also be in their interest ?

I concur. I wrote a short piece about this yesterday.

On each of the issues you mention, and more, States or the people are supreme. Let's begin each session of Congress with a reading of the 10th amendment.

I agree with Dean once again here. His position is at least _consistent_ -- and is the only one consistent with the United States Constitution and the vision of our Founding Fathers.

The Tenth Amendment explicitly states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states repectively, or to the people."

That settles it.

I have myself increasingly moved toward a "states' rights" position, and even further, toward devolving power to counties and municipalities. Schools, police, and many other things must be left to the local community -- _not_ subsidized and controlled by the federal government.

I've concluded that homosexual marriage _must_ be left to the states if we are to avoid another Civil War or worse. I would support a Constitutional amendment to that effect if necessary. I also advocate an amendment, if necessary, allowing states to refuse to grant or recognize divorces. My main motive for that is that I would like to see more states offer "covenant" or "total commitment" marriages in which the spouses can agree to foreclose the possibility of divorce. In my opinion, marriage ought to be a vow of eternal fidelity, not dissoluble upon every passing whim. But I certainly do _not_ want the _federal_ government deciding that question! Leave it to the states as our Founding Fathers clearly intended.

As it is now, however, beginning with Andrew Jackson, who began America's shift from a Constitutional republic to a democracy, and accelerating with Wilson and then FDR, the executive branch of the federal government has increasingly divorced itself from the chains of the Constitution.

"In question of power, then, speak no more of confidence in man, but, rather, bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution."
-Thomas Jefferson

As to marijuana, wasn't the principal objection to it that young men who smoked it were inclined to grow their hair long and become hippies? How about a law requiring all men to cut their hair short and wear suits and ties? Myself, I like to keep my hair as short as possible, a crew-cut, "square", and I like dressing up on occasion, but I certainly don't want any government telling me I have to do so -- and _most_ certainly _not_ the federal government!

Aaron: I don't see that the FDA is strictly Constitutional either.

Dave: Do physicians need to be "certified specially" to prescribe any other drugs? Is Marijuana somehow more dangerous than opiates, that any ordinary medical doctor could not write a scrip for it?

My GP recently wrote me a scrip for antibiotics (dangerous to the general population if abused, since they would breed resistant bacteria) and codeine cough syrup (an addictive CNS depressant) because I had pneumonia. Why he shouldn't be able to write someone else a scrip for pot to combat nausea or low appetite without "special certification" is something I cannot quite understand.

Pot probably ought to be regulated... just like cigarettes. It's certainly not any more dangerous, realistically.

The problem is the equal protection clause. If it is legal for you to buy something in one state it is legal to own it in another. If you have a license to do something in one state (such as drive) you cannot be denied it in another state. This is why states seem to decide these things en masse.

Only quibble, however, is that the Second Amendment is not something that can be regulated at the state level. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean it may be infringed at the state level. No one would question that you have the right of free speech, regardless of where you live. I do not understand why people think the Second Amendment can be ignored.

"Does it not cause a problem to have a drug allowed and not regulated by the FDA?"

Not really. Unless you think that more and cheaper drugs being available is a problem.

"How do you keep that door from being opened to other drugs?"

I don't know. But I'd like that door to be opened to all other drugs anyway.

"How to do you ensure that drugs sold to the public are safe when you allow the approval on one that is not?"

You can't ensure that drugs sold to the public are "safe". All you can do is forbid the public to buy drugs that are less safe that some arbitrary standard you set, and if not taking any drug at all is more dangerous than that for you, then you're just SOL.

At any rate, we should reflect that the original Prohibitionists thought that they needed a Constitutional Amendment in order to get their law enacted; however, today's Prohibitionists get away with enforcing essentially the same law at the Federal level with essentially the same Constitution that the Prohibitionists faced and felt the need to amend. That right there should tell you something.

"And as for states' rights regarding gay marriage, that's not something you can allow to devolve to the states unless you're willing to make a gigantic exception to the full faith and credit clause."

Sounds good to me.

Sigivald:
I'm looking at two things at once while poorly wording myself when I say that.

One, malpractice suits - "You prescribed marijuana to me (or my relative) and messed up my (or their) life!". Sure, it happens already, but I'd like to find some way to make future examples less frequent.

Two, I'm looking at the idea of doctors prescribing it for their buddies just because the buddies want to get high. At least with most opiates, the initial prescription is for pain relief. If the doctor has to go through extra steps to be able to prescribe something like this that's already so popular as a high, maybe they'll be a little less likely to abuse their privileges.

And I'm probably still poorly wording myself, because I haven't really thought it through to find where logic and my instincts intersect. I've never done pot. I see no reason for me to ever do it - including if I end up with a terminal, painful disease.

Taking the anecdotal evidence of frequent pot smokers is less useful than that of frequent cigarette smokers, because at least the cigarette smokers will admit there's negative health side effects to the addiction they can only rarely break and usually don't even want to.

As for nausea and low appetite - considering the range that covers, I certainly don't want pot as the default prescription, which I fear it would become if not carefully and rigorously controlled.

Again, I'm trying to express poorly-defined instinctual reactions to this subject in rational terms. Probably not possible to do it well.

------------------------------------------------

Ken, as to your last point, if I'm reading you right, you're saying, "Yes, take a huge exception to the full faith and credit clause". Yes?

Do you really think that would 1) work, 2) be allowed? I mean, even if it went through the Legislative and Executive Branches, how long do you think it would be before one court or another said it was impermissible to make that exception?

Mrs. du Toit asked:
"I do not understand why people think the Second Amendment can be ignored."

I do. A free people is an armed people and, conversely, a disarmed people is an enslaved people. The gun-banners want to disarm us so they can enslave us. Gun control works very well. Just ask the experts: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.

We have one commenter here in Dean's World who has explicitly declared himself an enemy of the Second Amendment. Most gun-banners are not that honest. They prefer to ignore the Second Amendment or else to "re-interpret" it into meaninglessness. I'm against that!

I think that some of you are missing my point in reference to the FDA and ensuring that drugs are safe and effective.

There are a number of steps that a company has to go through in order to get any medicine approved for use and distribution in the US. People here seem to be arguing that Marijuana should not be held to the same standard and I completely disagree.

I have no problem with making it legal if it can pass the same restrictions that we place on all medicinal drugs. To the best of my knowledge, it cannot so far do so. The lesser testing that they have done does not greatly support the benefits taht many claim marijuana has, and the harm caused by the product would be a large barrier to overcome. There do appear to be some medical benefits, but are they enough to overcome the dangers of use?

Companies are already exploring ways to get the benefits of marijuana without the harm by exploring delivery methods other than smoking the plant, etc. If they develop a viable option they should also have to get FDA approval just like any other medical product.

I see no reason why that product should be treated any differently.

I know a lot of people are against the FDA, but it is a valuable orginization that saves lives and prevents great harm to the general public. Does it also prevent some freedom and beneit to the public? Yes, certainly, but I believe that it is worth having. It is worth not being able to have access to every single new drug out there in order to ensure that the drugs I do take are safe and effective in their claims. It is worth paying higher prices for drugs to know the same.

Look in any book on logical fallacies; "slippery slope" is one of the most common.

I can't thnkn of anything else on this I haven't already said: people who oppose this strike me as willfully ignorant and deeply cruel, but in any case it's best to let it be a state issue.

Ironically, I am less opposed to Marijuana being legalized for recreational use than I am to it be approved for medical use.

Although that too causes some problems so far we have found a way to make compromises with both tobacco and alchohol work. We could likely add marujuana under the juristiction of the ATF and not the FDA as well and make that into a managable solution.

Why should marijuana be treated differently than any other medicinal drug Dean?

Because it's an herb, and herbs don't require FDA approval for medicinal use.

Nor is this a state issue anyway.

The research supporting its use has been done in other nations, and endless clinical reports from cancer wards and AIDS hospices all over the United States prove that it's worth allowing suffering and dying people this option. If you absolutely have to have FDA testing for an herb, when no other herb has to go through that, then fine, it's silly but whatever will make conservatives happy, so long as we can stop denying dying people racked with pain and nausea some relief.

I hold no brief for marajuana use, period. I tried it one weekend in 1981 when I was 15; did some things I was later ashamed of; and decided not to use it anymore. Also, Aaron is correct. The medicinal qualities of marajuana are specious, at best. Inhaling any kind of smoke, be it tobacco, marajuana, or the house burning down kind cannot be good for your long-term health. I also recall readiing something several years back on the subject of marajuana smoke actually being more harmful to lungs because tobacco was at least smoked with filters.

Having said all that, Prohibition is not good public policy. I favor de-criminalizing all drug use. I am in favor of a laissez-faire policy in regards to drugs. I am particularly ticked off at the medical community for monopolizing the distribution of drugs which normal citizens can self-prescribe without much danger. I remember my father having a prescription for Tagamet back in the 80's. Now, since a doctor in Australia discovered that most ulcers were caused by a bacteria, and developed a medicine to kill that bacteria, Tagemet, Zantag, Pepcid are all over-the-counter drugs. Well, if we stupid masses were incapable of administering these drugs without a doctor's supervision in the 80's, did we suddenly become smarter.

There is an inherent elitism in the restriction of all drugs. I am highly in favor of requiring companies to honestly state the benefits and costs of using a particular drug. But the Nanny State policy that restricts even FDA approved drugs is elitists. Most people seriously want to improve their lives. They are not bent on killing themselves by abusing drugs. And for those who are, Darwin had a point.

The reason many former hippies romanticize the drug use of the 60's and 70's is that they have forgotten all those who died from abusing drugs. Society has other ways to stigmatize drug abuse, which is fine by me. Also, companies whose claims about their products can be held accountable in courts. And those who commit crimes while under the influence can be thrown under the jail.

But enough with the "possession" laws. And especially enough with the drug seizure laws which, despite the Court's assertions to the contrary, are definite violations of the 4th Amendment. I know a man who once operated a private jet. His jet was confiscated because one of his passengers was carrying some drugs in his luggage. Where is the justice in that? This was an honorable man, who was never charged with a crime, and who the government completely exhonerated. But they kept his airplane. That is outrageous. The DEA has become a den of thieves, agents for a government engaging in racketeering.

Oh well, probably not what you expect from a Bible-thumping right-wing ideologue, but this issue gets under my skin.

Medical marijuana is a trojan horse. Today's
prescription drug formulary's have plenty of
medications to relieve the afflicted. The notion that those opposing it are willfully ignorant
and deeply cruel is more than laughable. If in fact glaucoma is a desirable effect then marijuana can be considered as a prescription medication. But the fact is that one joint doesn't have the same unitary dosage quantifications as the next joint and the whole issue of medical marijuana fails to address those issues and as well more profound issues. One of those issues is: Do two young grandchildren have the right to not have one of their parent-guardians come home from work "stoned" because marijuana isn't a big thing in their view ?

And while I'm at it, I don't think much of seatbelt laws either.

And you probably don't have any kids either ?

Wrong! I have three children, ages 14, 11, & 9. I teach them properly, have a good relationship with them, explain why I think abusing drugs is wrong, forbid them to do certain things within my household, let them know why, teach them the self-control is the overriding issue and that no substance is inherently evil in and of itself, one people who misuse things expose their evil natures, etc.

The same way my parents, a Baptist preacher and a homemaker taught me.

By the way, how many gluttons have you seen belly up to the potluck table at a church social, fill their plate to overflowing, and then engage in a conversation denouncing drunkenness, tobaco, etc. I've seen plenty. I don't hold it against them necessarily, because when it comes down to it, anyone who holds to a higher standard will be hypocritical from time to time, and we all have blind spots. But that doesn't mean I am blind to the hypocracy of the position of Prohibition.

But let me ask you this. Do you think America was more or less moral 100 years ago prior to any restriction on drug usage?

The medical mary j is legal here in San Antonio. I know a man that uses it for his cancer pain. He takes it in pill form.

"We all live in a yellow submarine", for some reason while reading this post and the comments that ole' song is playing in my mind and, One pill makes you stronger and one pill makes you small and the one Mother gives you doesn't do anything at all. I was a busy Mom and never went to Woodstock, WOW seems like a lot of folks are too uptight over this. I wasn't a pot smoker and now I wonder what I missed....Oh sorry, get back to your discussion...Go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall.

The real issue here is not marajuana. It is Freedom, and and willingness to let the common man and woman make decisions about how to live their lives with a minimum of government interference.

The reason drug laws exist as they do today is because the "greatest generation" were collectively bad parents. They didn't take the time to teach their children the proper values, and when their children went off and joined the radical movements of the Boomer generation, the WWII generation decided that the government could fix what they failed to accomplish in the raising of their own children.

There are a lot of laws out there that are similar. Mommy wants you to buckle your seatbelt so you will be safe, and wear your helmet, too. And just to make sure you will comply with her wishes when she's not looking, let's pass a law making you a criminal if you don't do what Mommy wants. Wrong. That is not freedom. Children should have to obey Mommy. But adults should be free to make their own choices.

Scott,

I'm not trying to slam you. And I apologize if I did. My point is: seat belts are important. As are child safety seats that are strapped in to the auto's passenger seat. I know that from seeing
children thrown into the opposite lane of a freeway caused by a reckless driver who side-swiped a lady into that opposing traffic. That was not a nice site to see children like road kill. So I say seat belt laws have merit.
And equally, I did raise my children with negative
drug admonitions. But once they leave home, I do not have control to whom or with whom they choose to share their life. And in some states, that can be a problem. So I don't know the answer to what America was like 100 years ago, but I believe in freedom. I do know that in my lifetime, my mother gave me money to buy cigarettes so I wouldn't be tempted to get marijuana joints. That's how her generation handled it. But we are now three generations removed and conditions are a bit different.

Dean, if it's fallacious to ask, "Where does it stop?", well... where do you, personally, draw the line? Do you draw a line? What reasoning do you use?

Slippery slope is overused, yes, and often when people cry, "slippery slope" they are engaging in fallacious reasoning. But the curve does happen from time to time, just less often and less obviously than people expect. And isn't it good manners to explore the consequences and explain why proposition X will not lead to logical extension Y, or else why Y is also desirable?

Scott,

Not wearing your seat belt is not criminal, it is a minor infraction punishable by a fine. What's criminal is not wearing your seat belt and being thrown from a vehicle causing your death or spinal injury. Is that the infringement on freedom that you support ?

If cannabis is so useful as a medicinal treatment, then let it be administered as is any other controlled substance.

I'm talking injections at various strengths of tetrahydrocanabinol, the active ingredient of cannabis. I said injected, not smoked, and only in a medical facility or other institutional setting, under administration of a trained and responsible medical clinician.

That means no laying around a dirty floor under candlelight with a pack of 60-year-old gray-haired hippies playing let's pretend it's 1965 in San Francisco. If you want pain killer, here it is. But without the weedstock atmosphere.

They tell me you'll be feel and act loopy within 30 minutes, peaking at about 50 minutes, followed by a 45-240 minute comedown. After which they can throw your worthless ass out of the clinic and you'll be able to drive home without smacking up your car or, worse, some innocent driver.

Then, when society wants to get rid of you for keeps, they can boost your injected toke with a phencycladine hotshot of just the right amount, and it will fill you with paranoia one last time, then stop your heart. Then you'll never again be a cause for anyone's concern.

Assholes.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

it's silly but whatever will make conservatives happy, so long as we can stop denying dying people racked with pain and nausea some relief.

My position exactly. Good discussion here all around, though.

What I'm wondering is where the FDA draws the line between, say, a medicinal herb and an outright drug. It's my understanding that the recommended delivery system in medicinal marijuana use continues to be the old-fashioned route of smoking it; is this still so? If instead the cannabinoids are extracted and administered via more traditional medical routes, does it then become a drug?

I'm thinking of the ban on ephedra, here, which was also available as an herb (ma huang was the Chinese name for it). The herb-versus-drug distinction is the regard in which I can see the FDA perhaps being justified in butting into the problem, to set efficacy, quality, and potency standards, perhaps.

"And equally, I did raise my children with negative
drug admonitions. But once they leave home, I do not have control to whom or with whom they choose to share their life. And in some states, that can be a problem."

Why is it a problem for you to lose control of your children after they come of age? It seems right and proper to me. I have no desire to continue to parent my children after they are grown, and I had less than no desire to be parented after I came of age.

"Why is it a problem for you to lose control of your children after they come of age? "

Ken, I think you missed the point. Children are on their own after reaching majority. They make their own decisions. We want them to do just that. But Scott Harris suggested: "They (the parents) didn't take the time to teach their children the proper values."

So is it okay for me to criticize the spouse of a daughter and her children when he comes home "stoned" because he thinks its okay and I was not the father of that spouse ?

Arnold Harris, Thanks for opening the window, we needed the airing. You are spot on as they say.

Where do I draw the line? By getting the Feds out of regulating things that are none of their business and allowing doctors to prescribe anything their consciences and expertise tell them is right.

I had sinus surgery a couple of years ago. My surgeon put two flakes of perfectly legal cocaine--COCAINE--in my nose to help heal it. Completely legal, completely above-board, totally allowable under the law.

Making a much more harmless herb available, when almost all clinicians AND SUFFERING DYING PEOPLE tell you almost universally that none of the drugs is as good as the herb at alleviating their nausea, and it's incredibly difficult for me not to feel others are just being reactionary about a damned WEED that grows EVERYWHERE.

Ilyka: The FDA does not and never has regulated any form of herb, regardless of the contents of that herb.

Whether they should is another subject. My own view is the only area where they should get involved is in monitoring claims made by manufacturers, and making sure any supplements contain what they say they contain. But right now they dont' even do that for the law holds that herbs are beyond their power to regulate at all.

I have an idea. They should put the herb in pill form. That way the people who need it can get the relief they need while the rest of us don't have to see people toking for "medical" reasons.

Wow. I'm amazed all the skewed views here. It's hard to know where to start. Maybe with Tim the (toy) Soldier's usual swipe at Republicans, as if the Democrats aren't just as deeply in bed with the tobbaco companies.

Ah, well, away from watermelon world, and back to reality. It may interest the conservatives here that "Mr. Conservative" himself, W.F. Buckley, agrees with Dean. (and so do I)

Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great. The laws aren't exactly indefensible, because practically nothing is, and the thunderers who tell us to stay the course can always find one man or woman who, having taken marijuana, moved on to severe mental disorder. But that argument, to quote myself, is on the order of saying that every rapist began by masturbating.

Food for thought, eh? ;)

It's already available in pill form. Patients almost universally report that the pills are inferior to smoking the herb or cooking it into a food product.

Now why is that not surprising...

"Where do I draw the line?

Well, actually the line behind which you stand is in the same group as the vitamin B 17-Laetrile crowd, the folks that are still selling apricot and almond seed potions to cure cancer which incidentally just doesn't happen to work. But don't tell the followers of Dr. Krebs that. It might cut down on sales.

William Buckley may have reason supporting the sales of marijuana legally but he most certainly was not advocating its use as a cure-all for whatever save perhaps getting stoned.

And Dean is right, smoking it gets you stoned a lot faster and better than the pill form. Having lived in Asia for several years, I never once heard of people going to the herb doctor for marijuana therapy.

No, Catch 22. Clinical testing of Laetril shows that it doesn't do anything. Clinical testing of marijuana shows that its' highly effective for dealing with certain problems, but most espcially for those undergoing chemotherapy or suffering from AIDS treatment programs.

And the benefit of the smoked pot is that the user can control the intake of the THC better than pills.

Also, by the way, William F. Buckley watched friends die of cancer who were helped by the drug, and watched some of them go to jail. He views denying people medical marijuana exactly the same way I do: something that pretty obviously works very well to extent both quantity and quality of life for advanced chemotherapy patients. And like me he has made it clear that he believes that denying this to suffering people is the height of cruelty.

You folks need to educate yourselves on this rather than making snarky comments. You really should.

By the way: the pill form of medical marijuana is far more potent, and makes people a LOT more stoned and goofy, than smoking it does.

So those of you opposting medical marijuana because you think of it as an evil drug that must be stopped should know that the pill form actually makes people more drugged out and stoned.

The benefit of smoking the herb is that the user can limit his dosage much more effectively than taking a pill. A lot more effectively.

As I say, all you guys are doing is putting on moral heirs and condemning something you haven't tried to understand.

Talk to anyone who works at an AIDS or cancer hospice and ask them about this. They'll tell you the truth.

By the way, do any of you skeptics even know what the medical marijuana is used for exactly?

I could explain it to you in simple terms, but if you don't even care I won't bother.

Q for Catch-22: You don't think much of the government mandated seat-belt laws, but how do you feel about the government passing laws that forbide two women or two men getting married? Hmmmm. Just asking.

Well, my snarkiness is predicated on skepticism.
Dr. Freud the father of psychoanalysis died after a long series of crises and surgeries from malignancy of the jaw. His medication of choice was not marijuana but morphine. I don't know of any literature that suggests marijuana as a medication or treatment anywhere prior to the 1960's. If I am condemning it, it is because I don't think children need stoned parents. Is that overly moral ?

I think it may be unintentionally disingenuous to make a value judgment on "slippery slope." That appears to be slandered as a pejorative term. I must have missed the memo. The evaluation of consequences, determining if society is aware of what them, is willing to deal with them, or accept them as less harmful than the benefits, is question number one before moving forward on anything. Evaluating consequences, even pie in the sky potentials, is the basis of determining the importance, risks, relevance, etc., of just about everything. I'm getting the idea that this is no longer considered a reasonable approach. Have I misunderstood?

That being said, I seem to be somewhat conflicted on the purpose of this post. Not so much because it is a discussion of medical marijuana, but because I took the post in the literal by its title of a discussion of federalism, and responded accordingly.

Stating a point of fact, such as "people are concerned about the potential consequences of the equal protection clause" applies to any discussion about state vs federal territory, when there is reluctance of the people of one state to support another state's deviation from a perceived standard.

Personally, I had to take the leap/risk and buy marijuana for my brother, because his doctor made the point of telling me that the synthetic version was not nearly as useful as the real thing. Fortunately, the statute of limitations on that is over, so I can mention it.

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made by folks here that may be confused by some of the above. Are we discussing federalism and state powers generically, or only as they relate to medical marijuana, or a combination of all? I'm not so sure we're all debating/discussing the same topic.

Dean, the nut here with that song still playing in my mind, can't think of the name of it and that is why it's still there. "One pill makes you stronger and one pill makes you strong and the one that Mother gives you isn't anything at all,...just ask Alice cause she is ten feet tall"

Anyway I think Mrs. du Toit is right in her comments above. I do have a question. It was brought out that the FDA would have to approve the benefits and side effects of medical m.j. Well then how did it come to be in pill form? Also, as several states have made a decision to give it to patients suffering with chronic nausea and pain and would do anything to feel better and try to life a normal life with the hope of this mj pill helps, then I believe it should be available in all states eventually.

I am wondering too how the government would stay out of it because people who are in need of a calming way to help ease their serious diseases would and are travelling to the states that offer it. My dear son that lives in Washington is allowed to smoke it and it is controlled. It has helped him more than morphine when he gets a bout of pancreatitis. I too have suffered that and believe me I would have travelled to another state. The disease of pancreatitis comes like a vengence with horrible pain from your gut straight to your back. Only another person suffering that would understand. I just am a bit dense here because if one state made it legal and other's don't won't the government have to step in? People are going to Mexico and Canada for their prescriptions and the drug companies are calling on the government to stop that.

Just a few questions Dean that I either don't understand or would like to know what you and others think.

Mrs. du Toit: You raise several issues. Let me try to address each.

First, the Equal Protection clause does not apply here. There are several examples I can think of, but here are a couple: 1) One state may grant driver's licenses to someone under the age of 18, whereas another will require you to be 18 to be legally allowed to drive. If a 17 year old with a license in one state drives into a state with a requirement of attaining age 18, that 17 year old is in violation of the law and can be ticketed and arrested, and the courts have never disputed this.

Another example is fireworks: they may be legal to sell in one state and illegal to possess in another. Again, no Equal Protection clause applies. Because making something legal is not a "protection."

"Making something legal" is probably the troublesome phrasing here. In our system, anything and everything is legal which is not specifically proscribed. Thus, having something "legal" does not make it a "protection" that invokes Constitutional authority. Nevada has no law banning prostitution, thus it's legal in Nevada. This doesn't mean a Nevada prostitute may cross the state line into California and continue to ply her trade there.

It is illegal to sell alcohol in some parts of the United States even today. Again, the equal protection clause simply does not apply.

Regarding whether the discussion is on federalism or not, I was hoping it would be a discussion on federalism but others wish to move the discussion toward whether medical pot should be legal or not. I frankly think those opposting this are being extraordinarily cruel, but I can't change the fact that this is a divisive issue. This to me merely re-emphasizes the fact that the issue is contentious and, that being the case, the ideal solution is to make it a state and not a federal matter.

Regarding "slippery slope"--I can only repeat to you that if you look in any reference on logical fallacies, "slippery slope" will be listed, and has been so listed for centuries. Furthermore, most first-year law students learn that slippery slope arguments are inherently fallacious and almost always fail in court. Slippery Slope is listed alongside arguments Ad Hominem, Appeal To Authority, Appeal To Ignorance, Straw Man, False Dilemma, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, and so on in all elementary introductory texts on logic. This is nothing new; references on logic have included these for ages. Here is a listing of common logical fallacies.

Slippery Slope is an emotional argument: "if Nevada legalizes prostitution, soon it will be legal everywhere!" "If we allow 16 year olds to drive, soon 6 year olds will be driving!" "If we allow pot to be prescribed to chemotherapy patients, soon LSD and crack will be legal too!"

Slippery Slope is almost always a null hypothesis. It's an emotional argument, not a logical one.

Janelle: The fact that THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, alleviates nausea for chemotherapy patients has been accepted science for decades. This is why doctors can prescribe it in pill form right now.

The smoked form makes people less high (less high) and is more efficacious for alleviating nausea. Since many chemotherapy patients literally starve to death because they cannot keep food down, and find that the pills make them wildly stoned and out of control and frightened, the smoked form works better for many.

This is why doctors and nurses on many cancer wards have simply learned to "not notice" the sweet smell of burning marijuana leaf on their wards and in hospices and homes where there are chemotherapy patients. They can't prescribe it or advise their patients on its use, but they find ways to hint at it and go out of their way to ignore it when they see it or smell it because they know it works.

Pity the poor patients who don't pick up the hint. They often live shorter lives and live out their days in more misery than the ones who "catch on" to the wink and nod.

From my perspective it is extraordinarily cruel to deny this therapy to patients who are suffering. Yet conservatives seem to feel that it's incredibly important that we keep this herb out of dying people's hands because somehow society will be harmed if we let them have it. I have no sympathy for this view, but I admit that the issue is contentious. Therefore I argue that it should indeed be a state matter, for there is no Constitutional need for the Federal government to involve itself deeply in the question.

I fall decidedly with Dean on this one... a very able series of defenses sir, well done. On the accusations of "slippery slope", it is not a falacy like ad hominem or appeal to authority that hold no logical weight, rather it shifts the debate; "is there a slope?" "How slippery is that slope?" which is where much of the above discourse has tracked and quite properly. For me the more disquieting slope is the one to totalitarianism. If you bestow the moral charge on the government of saving competent adults from themselves, where does it stop? I don't see how possession of anything that just grows up out of the ground can be criminally proscribed justly and all the counter arguments here, and anywhere on that subject that I have seen, boil down to cheap emotional posturing.

"The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling on May 24, 2002, upholding DEA's determination that marijuana must remain a schedule I controlled substance. The Court of Appeals rejected an appeal filed by High Times Magazine and Jon Gettman, who contended that marijuana does not meet the legal criteria for classification in schedule I, the most restrictive schedule under the Controlled Substances Act."

I think the disconnect is the description of all evaluations of consequences as "the slippery slope." It is an intentional conversation stopper, in the same way that calling someone a Nazi invokes Godwin's Law.

Heather MacDonald, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell, Theodore Dalrymple, Dinesh D'Souza, Bill Buckley (I could go on) have made their living as modern day documenters of "the slippery slope." Heather MacDonald's book, The Burden of Bad Ideas, was exactly that—a detailed, historical validation of the slippery slope.

Those people I named make their living analyzing social policy through the view of historical facts and projecting those facts forward. It is beyond common sense in that it isolates a particular plan or idea and searches history for something similar. Then it compares the likelihood of those after effects repeating this time around.

The "Left" asserts that there is nothing similar about modern day ideas with anything tried in the past, or, to put more simply, they "don't let facts get in the way of something they want to do."

It may very well be "cruel" to deny medical marijuana to people who could benefit from it. That isn't the discussion. That is an appeal to emotionalism. The fact that people got snarky is not surprising when faced with the task of defending their cruelty for their perceived benefit to society as a whole. It is not unlike the If It Could Save The Life Of One Child™ meme where we are expected to measure the value (or negatives) for generations and generations of people based on the benefits to one or a handful of people.

Using that logic we'd never go to war. Risking the life of one person, or dozens of people, so that others may live free is a bargain most of us are willing to accept.

While I believe, firmly, that decriminalizing marijuana has more benefits than risk, I would encourage everyone to explore all possible negative consequences of such a decision. Even if The People decide to go forward with such a plan, knowing there will be downsides, at least they will be prepared to deal with them.

Just because someone points out why their may be reluctance (in answer to your central thesis) it isn't logical to presume they agree with it, or even that they don't have a thorough understanding of the relevant details.

Catch 22,

I tend to reject the "its for the kids" argument. That argument is used way too often to justify unwarranted infringement of freedom.

Also, I want to say one more thing. It is difficult to say that I am for allowing people to make choices without seeming to support their bad choices. I think Medical Marajuana is witch-doctor science (apologies to Dean, who just cannot bring himself to use the word "NO"). So the way I phrase it is, "I am in favor of decriminalizing drug usage." I know it is semantic, but I don't say, "I support legalized drugs."

While the effect may be the same, the sentiment is not. I think people who abuse drugs are fools. But I don't feel the need to prohibit foolishness.

Some say that the Fall of Man in the Garden was God's will. Else, why not just forego putting the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil there. If God had never created the opportunity for Sin, then we could all be sin free. So is God the author of evil? No, God is the author of freedom. And freedom has no meaning unless we have the freedom to make unwise, foolish, and even sinful choices.

If God was did not value preserving perfection high than freedom, then neither shall I. I don't "support" illicit drug use. But I think criminalizing it is just wrong. And it is also bad public policy. Fully 70% of prison populations are from drug related crimes. Not all of them would go away if drug usage was decriminalized. But many would.

I wish everyone always made the right choices. I wish I made the right choices all the time. But I don't, and neither does anyone else. Criminalizing bad choices - even those which are potentially fatal - is not a path I wish to walk down. I know Mommy would like to perpetually protect her kids. But the God given preference is that we CHOOSE life over death, salvation over damnation, etc. That choice is not possible if busy body do-gooders run the society so that we have no choices, and no freedom.

Error correction:

If God did not value preserving perfection higher than freedom, then neither shall I.

Also, Catch 22, relative to seat belt laws. The fundamental question is who is responsible for the lives of children, the parents or the state? I believe the parents are responsible, and if some children lose their lives because of unwise choices of parents, then that is a price worth paying to preserve family authority and freedom. I realize that for some, "protecting the children" justifies any infringement of freedom, but I just do not agree. BTW, my children buckle up.

But I still don't think their should be a law for which parents can be held criminally liable if their preschooler unbuckles his seatbelt unknown to the parent just before an unfortunate accident. And too often, the burden of proving innocence is on the parent. Its the same with Rape-shield laws. The accused is guilty until proven innocent. This turns justice on its head.

Perhaps I am just more risk tolerant than Catch 22. But it does not mean that I excuse bad behavior, just that I don't think criminal laws are the solution.

I should say one more thing. I think their should be a distinction between Societal condemnation, and State condemnation. State Condemnation involves criminal law.

But suppose we allowed people to choose to use marajuana. I have no problem with companies and organization discriminating against drug users. you want a job with my company? Don't use illicit drugs. I don't care if they are techinically legal, and I don't care to hear your argument about their medical efficacy. You make a choice which is more important to you - using marajuana or working at my company. So their is still a cost to your choice to use marajuana - just not a criminal price.

The problem is that the ACLU wants to make it illegal to discriminate against those who make bad choices UNLESS the State has passed a criminal law against the alleged activity. This is wrong. I should be able to exercise my freedom by refusing to reward bad choices and bad behavior by denying benefits under my control to those engaging in bad behavior. So freedom is a two edged sword. You want freedom to smoke pot. Fine with me. But you better damn well support my freedom to refuse to hire Pot-heads as well.

Dean, you are right that the equal protection clause does not apply here, but not for the reason you cited. It's a question of the general scope of the 14th Amendment, not a semantic quibble over what is or isn't considered a "protection." The equal protection only prohibits each state from denying the equal protection of laws to those within its jurisdiction. No state is required to adjust its laws to make them "equal," or in any way comparable, to those of any other state. Thus, if State X chooses to legalize alcohol, pot, fireworks and gambling for everyone who resides in State X, there is no equal protection problem. Similarly, if neighboring State Y chooses to outlaw all of these things for everybody, there is no equal protection problem there, either. Only when State Z tries to legalize them for some residents while prohibiting them for others do any serious equal protection issues arise.

As to the slippery slope issue, I think it's your objection that is fallacious, not the slippery slope argument itself. Slippery slope is a "fallacy" only in the strictest sense of the word: i.e., it is not a logical proof. If someone claimed that a little bit of X would absolutely, positively, certainly lead to much more X, then yes, that argument would be illogical, and you would be right to call them on it. That's not what happened here. Rather, some commenters voiced concern that a small amount of X is likely to lead to more X in the future. That's a legitimate concern. That it's only true often rather than always does not change that fact. A rule of thumb that made accurate predictions 99.9% of the time would be very useful indeed, yet for purposes of logic it would still be considered a "fallacy."

Unless a slippery slope argument is presented as though it were a logical proof, objecting to such an argument on the basis that it's a logical fallacy is itself a prime example of the lesser known, but equally fallacious "fallacy fallacy." What you are arguing, in effect, is "your conclusion is based on an argument that is sometimes wrong; therefore, your conclusion in this instance is wrong."

While we are talking about freedom, let me go way out on a limb. I think individuals and private companies should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason. This is called Freedom of Association. Do I support racial discrimination? No. Do I support gender discrimination? Sometimes.

The point is that I support freedom. And freedom is not free. It has costs. What many want is freedom without costs. Perhaps I am comfortable with my concept of freedom because I believe that I am accountable to a higher power than the state - namely God. So my personal exercise of freedom is not without potential costs.

I fundamentally reject the construct that the state is the ultimate authority. In my view, it is God - people - state, in that order. So the state should be accountable to me, not vice versa. Will I make bad choices and costly mistakes? Sure. And I am accountable to God for those things.

Let's examine a case of racial discrimination - Jackie Robinson. Black people were not allowed to play in that AL or the NL of Major League Baseball. So they created the Negro League. Now was Branch Rickey a die hard integrationist who wanted to use his Brooklyn Dodgers team to right the historical wrongs of society vis a vis black people. Well, some say so.

I say that the Major League owners looked at the Negro league and figured out that they were losing out on a lot of talent. Branch Rickey's decision to go against Major League baseball had less to do with his benevolent attitude toward black people than it did with his selfish desire to win a World Series. And he wanted the best players on his team. Jackie Robinson just happened to be one of those "Best Players." So Rickey said, "To hell with discrimination, get me Jackie Robinson."

The point is that in our society, only the stupid people will discriminate against someone who has something they need. So you want to overcome discrimination? Be the best at something and you can write your own ticket. And that is the value of freedom.

Note that there is a difference between state sanctioned discrimination, and the personal choices of private citizens. As an agent of the state, whether elected or employed, discrimination should be illegal. But private individuals, or even public employess acting privately should have the freedom to make their own choices.

BTW, before you all start calling me a racist, I am married to a woman of Mexican descent and have both Cherokee and Choctaw ancestors. And my sister's daughter has an African American father. You see, freedom can be used properly, too. I am for trusting the average person to make decisions about their own lives, and their own families with a minimum of government interference.

Scott, the law so far as I know does not prohibit small private employers from hiring or firing based on whatever standards they want. Only corporations who achieve a certain number of employees are generally subject to laws regulating their employee requirements. This strikes me as perfectly fair since corporations are artificial, state-created paper entities anyway, and thus have a responsibility to answer to the state for certain behaviors. They wouldn't even exist if the state hadn't created them in the first place, after all.

As for pot-heads: I'll bet you work with more than one now and don't even know it. ;-)

Xrlq: My own experience is that "slippery slope" events are such a rare phenomenon that its far more often fallacious reasoning than it is a real concern. Your mileage may vary.

Personally, I think it would be just as valid to say that the "slipppery slope" is allowing the state to forbid doctors to prescribe treatments that could save lives. What will the state try to outlaw doctors from doing next? Isn't that a very dangerous "slippery slope?"

The fact is that doctors can legally prescribe cocaine but not marijuana. Is it anyone's position here that having doctors able to prescribe cocaine is a "slippery slope" that leads to more widespread use of cocaine? Doctors can prescribe morphine too, and morphine is both far more addicting and far more debilitating than pot. Is having morphine available to doctors a "slippery slope" that leads to hordes of morphine addicts and kids doing morphine in the schools?

The notion that doctors should be allowed to prescribe a common weed that has been shown, repeatedly, to alleviate symptoms of acute nausea in chemotherapy patients is a "slippery slope" toward greater marijuana use by the general population makes no more sense than saying that outlawing medical marijuana is a "slippery slope" leading to the banning of all opiates by prescription.

Dean, you'd lose that bet. I work in an office of one - me. :>

I question your experience, then. Maybe some slopes were identified as "slippery" that really weren't. Maybe this one is, or maybe it isn't. My point is that you cannot simply dismiss someone's legitimate concerns that a little X will lead to more X, simply by calling the argument a fallacy. Figurative slippery slopes are not unlike real ones in this respect. Just because I walk on a slippery slope, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to fall, but it does mean I'm at an increased risk. If I don't really need to go there, I won't. If I do, I will, but I'll proceed more cautiously than normal. I won't throw caution to the wind simply because I might not fall.

Will medical marijuana lead to more non-medical use? Almost certainly; it's just a question of how much, and whether the trade-off is worth it. I happen to think it is, but that's easy for me to say since I don't have a problem with falling all the way to the bottom of the hill (i.e., legalizing marijuana outright). I don't expect my prohibitionist friends to be equally cavalier about that possibility, however.

Will the continued prohibition of medical marijuana lead to the prohibtion of medical use of opiates? Almost certainly not. We've been stuck on that slope long enough to know that it's not so damned slippery after all.

Dean,

I have a question. Is marajuana even chemically addictive, at all? I am unaware of anyone being chemically dependent upon marajuana - similar to alcohol. Maybe psychological dependence might occur, but I know of no chemical dependency issues with marajuana.

And maybe that is a line I could live with. Restricting drugs which create an involuntary chemical dependency.

The reason I went so far into the discrimination argument is that without the anti-discrimination laws, many more people might go along with this concept. There is too much civil liability financial risk involved in discriminating against a drug user if drug use was legal. If you solved the Civil liability problem, then more people might climb on board.

But I suspect that many pot users want to have their cake and eat it, too. That is, they want the legal right to use marajuana, but also want civil protection from anti-drug discrimination from employers, organizations, etc. In that case, I side with those who want to continue the status quo. You recognize mine and other's rights to discriminate against drug users, and we might grant the freedom to use drugs without criminal liability.

There is a fundamental difference between declining to criminalize certain behavior and positively sanctioning that behavior. I do not and will not sanction illicit drug use.

To the best of my knowledge the research on marijuana shows it to be moderately addictive, less so than cigarettes or opiates like morphine or codeine or things like Xanax or valium.

From my perspective it seems self-evident that employers should be able to demand a drug-free workplace--and as I think of it they already do. My employer insists on a drug screening as a condition of employment. If you show up positive for use of opiates or things like valium, Xanax, or whatever, then you have to show proof that you have a prescription for whatever they found. No prescription, then they don't hire you.

So I don't see how the medical marijuana would be any different. Show that you've got a doctor's prescription for it, or turn around and leave because you don't work here.

Personally, I'd be more comfortable if corporations had to show that someone was underperforming in some way in order to justify such drug screens, but that's another subject.

Employers cannot demand a "only married" workplace, a "Christian only" workplace, or a "male only" workplace, even in situations where they can make a case for it. A Christian organization, such as the Boy Scouts, is being harassed and sued on the basis of "discrimination."

While there are extraneous issues to the Boy Scout example, try advertising for a "pretty female receptionist" and see what happens.

These are trivial examples, but that is the larger point. People, private individual business owners, can no longer do those things. Even if they manage to sneak through the radar and do it for a while, they're vulnerable.

The larger issue here is one of liability and that is the thing about this that scares people more than anything else.

As X and Scott have pointed out, you can only reduce your vulnerability when you limit your employees to things that are illegal.

And that is just ONE of the many concerns people have about any redraw of the line about currently illegal drugs. There are hundreds of similar issues where there is a cloud of uncertainty, having little or nothing to do with the medical marijuana example itself, but because of a distrust that it will backfire on people somehow. While getting at the specifics is difficult and likely an often irrational concern, in general, people are wise to be concerned about it.

When a ladder manufacturer can be sued for someone who places the ladder on melting snow and gets injured falling off of it, AND WIN, I think it is reasonable for people to fear the unknown and uncharted and decide "I don't care what benefits there are, I'm not going there or taking any more risks."

Scott Harris:

All I can say is: Excellent, all of what you're writing here. Good to see you here again. Thank you.

"The fact is that doctors can legally prescribe cocaine but not marijuana."

No, Doctors don't prescribe cocaine as in here's your prescription go to the pharmacy and get your bottle filled. It is used in medical practice as a local anesthetic only and generally in the ear, nose, throat specialty by the doctor. In addition, use of it requires federal and state guidelines using triplicate pharmaceutical registration pads and stringent record keeping. Cocaine is not used for its systemic effect. That is a whole different story than handing your patient a permission slip to go to their local marijuana dealer and shop around to find out if the grass is good.

I am pleased to have posted here. There are so many others who are so much more skillful in debate and presentation with excellent argument. I am awed. I am still on the learning curve of life. In fact, I made a decision today. I’m still iffy on a whole lot of stuff but I am definitely against a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution

"But suppose we allowed people to choose to use marajuana. I have no problem with companies and organization discriminating against drug users. you want a job with my company? Don't use illicit drugs. I don't care if they are techinically legal, and I don't care to hear your argument about their medical efficacy. You make a choice which is more important to you - using marajuana or working at my company. So their is still a cost to your choice to use marajuana - just not a criminal price.

The problem is that the ACLU wants to make it illegal to discriminate against those who make bad choices UNLESS the State has passed a criminal law against the alleged activity. This is wrong. I should be able to exercise my freedom by refusing to reward bad choices and bad behavior by denying benefits under my control to those engaging in bad behavior. So freedom is a two edged sword. You want freedom to smoke pot. Fine with me. But you better damn well support my freedom to refuse to hire Pot-heads as well."

I also support the right to refuse to hire people for any damn reason at all, good or bad. I also support the right to use, buy, and sell recreational drugs. The question is, is it more important for everyone to have the right to use, buy, and sell recreational drugs, or is it more important for everyone to have the right to refuse to hire potheads, assuming that the ACLU prevents us from having both at once.

I'm going to say that granting everyone the right to use, buy, and sell recreational drugs. I say that because giving us that legal right not only reduces the incidence of suffering among certain disastrously sick people, but also drives down the overall homicide rate as the repeal of the first Prohibition did. On the flip side, if you can't discriminate on the basis of drug use in employment, you can still fire or refuse to hire on the basis of a bad performance record - and if one's drug use doesn't actually produce a bad performance record, then employers would tend to profit anyway by ignoring the drug use and hiring and promoting on the basis of the good performance record. If one's drug use does produce a bad performance record, the employer is free to fire and refuse to hire. It's not a perfect solution, but it's good enough that a lower homicide rate makes it worth accepting.

'If one's drug use does produce a bad performance record, the employer is free to fire and refuse to hire. It's not a perfect solution, but it's good enough that a lower homicide rate makes it worth accepting.'

And what if, legalizing said recreational drug use,
causes dysfunctional error in judgement and said
recreational drug user drives into a crowd of people on a side walk and kills a bunch. Who's freedom is being curtailed in that situation ?

“Also, Catch 22, relative to seat belt laws. The fundamental question is who is responsible for the lives of children, the parents or the state?”

Scott:

I have read most of what you offer for discussion. I cannot answer each point, but I can approach some of your ideas.

You say:

“I believe the parents are responsible, and if some children lose their lives because of unwise choices of parents, then that is a price worth paying to preserve family authority and freedom.”

I say:

That isn’t the fundamental question: The parents will not be responsible if they die in said accident nor are the children if they die in said accident. But, the state is responsible for health care for injured particularly if it requires that require long term medical care for brain, spinal injury and neuromuscular injury. And what if a family is side-swiped by a reckless driver and forced to the other side of the road and get killed head-on. Is that the innocent drivers fault ?

And, you say, “I realize that for some, "protecting the children" justifies any infringement of freedom, but I just do not agree.”

And, “I know Mommy would like to perpetually protect her kids. I cannot agree with that.

And, “I tend to reject the "its for the kids" argument. That argument is used way too often to justify unwarranted infringement of freedom.”

Similarly, motorcycle helmet law. if the driver refuses to wear his helmet, or doesn’t agree to wear it or thinks its an infringement on his personal freedom, and is injured, if he dies, the matter is resolved. But if he lives, as a paraplegic or brain injury patient for the rest of his life, then, the burden of responsibility is now and in perpetuity on the state.

So, in my view the state (as in We, the People) does indeed have a vested interest in these situations whether or not it interferes with your personal notions of what you think freedom to be. And could it possibly be just why we have such
Freedom restricting laws ?.

Catch 22 wrote:
"I am pleased to have posted here. There are so many others who are so much more skillful in debate and presentation with excellent argument. I am awed. I am still on the learning curve of life. In fact, I made a decision today. I?m still iffy on a whole lot of stuff but I am definitely against a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution."

I'm pleased that you posted here, too! Good for you! On _that_ I _totally_ agree.

I must say that I'm increasingly loving it here in Dean's World. Such good people here, including so many with whom I've strongly disagreed in the past. Agree or disagree, we have good discussions.

Thank you, I think I've gotten all my abrogations out on this particular topic. I'll try not to break as much china the next time I enter the shop.

Catch 22:

You know what? I was breaking a lot of china, too, when I first entered Dean's World and for a long time after. Maybe I will again, though right now I just feel warm and cozy. This is a strange place. A lot of fine people with all kinds of different beliefs, you one of them.

Steven, you are such a suck up.

;)

When I'm not being a *&^%$#@!