"Such proposals are frequently bad policy that the government shouldn't be engaged in."

Not the federal government. But if a state wishes to pass these kinds of laws, who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do? It's their state and they can write a specific law that suits them.

We have that for car standards and gun safety, for example.

Not the federal government. But if a state wishes to pass these kinds of laws, who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do? It's their state and they can write a specific law that suits them.

We have that for car standards and gun safety, for example.

And marijuana too! Good idea.

And marijuana too! Good idea.

Alcohol, by the way, is regulated at the state level.

Something to keep in mind when Trump cuts off grant funds to sanctuary cities. He'll be relying on the Supreme Court precedents set in those cases.

Something to keep in mind when Trump cuts off grant funds to sanctuary cities. He'll be relying on the Supreme Court precedents set in those cases.

Karma. It was a lousy ruling. Glad to see it will finally be put to good use.

I agree that fed jurisdiction should only cover those issues that need to be covered at the fed level out of pure necessity, such as with the military and international trade. But 911 systems, alcohol & marijuana issues have no business being regulated at the federal level. States are states for a reason. If everything is supposed to be the same between all states, then what's the point of having state governments?

"Yet you are opposed to states passing their own marijuana laws, claiming that states should not attempt to undermine federal law when it comes to marijuana."

Yes. That's the primary reason.

But, secondarily, it wouldn't work. What's more, YOU KNOW it wouldn't work yet you unabashedly promote it.

Prior to Prohibition about half the states banned alcohol. But alcohol was smuggled from the "wet" states to the "dry" states. The only solution was to ban alcohol at the federal level.

That wouldn't happen with drugs? And if each state should be allowed to make their own decision on marijuana, why limit it to that? I'm sure Nevada would love to legalize all drugs -- to go with their legalized gambling and prostitution.

You're opening a Pandora's box, and you don't seem to care.

But, secondarily, it wouldn't work. What's more, YOU KNOW it wouldn't work yet you unabashedly promote it.

Prior to Prohibition about half the states banned alcohol. But alcohol was smuggled from the "wet" states to the "dry" states. The only solution was to ban alcohol at the federal level.

... to accommodate the dry states at the expense of the wet states, as though the wet states had any such obligation. That's not a "solution" for states that had, in retrospect, wisely not banned alcohol.

In your mind, there is a utopian world that is within reach where all laws are perfect solutions to all the world's problems. Simply ban things that you think are harming the world, and all those bad things will go away. That is traditional liberal thinking but one you insist on making just like they do.

What's more, YOU KNOW it wouldn't work yet you unabashedly promote it.

What doesn't work is prohibition. It didn't work with alcohol, and it's not working with marijuana. I am personally opposed to rec use of marijuana, but I am even more opposed to people getting killed or imprisoned and their homes raided by SWAT teams simply because governments decided it's bad for you. The USA is supposed to be about freedom, and with freedom comes responsibility. If you take away people's responsibility, you also take away their freedom.

But you don't care about that.

... to accommodate the dry states at the expense of the wet states, as though the wet states had any such obligation.

You're making my point. If "wet" states had no obligation to keep alcohol in their state, then they would have no obligation to keep drugs in their state.

"Simply ban things that you think are harming the world, and all those bad things will go away."

Banning something sends the message that society does not accept it.

If "wet" states had no obligation to keep alcohol in their state, then they would have no obligation to keep drugs in their state.

Of course they don't have any such obligation. If your next door neighbor decides he doesn't want any crickets on his property, does it become obligatory for you to prevent any from moving from your yard to his?

Your line of thinking here is very much "liberal democrat" in nature. You feel it's okay to outlaw something for everyone just because some people can't handle something.

Banning something sends the message that society does not accept it.

In that case, when society, in the form of a majority of states, decide that they don't want marijuana criminalized or at least want it recognized for medicinal value, the fed gov should "get the message" too. But they don't.

If your next door neighbor decides he doesn't want any crickets on his property, does it become obligatory for you to prevent any from moving from your yard to his?

If my neighbor wants the law changed such that he can keep garbage on his property, then I expect him to keep the garbage on his property, not let it spill over into mine. Don't I have rights, too?

"In that case, when society, in the form of a majority of states, decide that they don't want marijuana criminalized or at least want it recognized for medicinal value, the fed gov should "get the message" too. But they don't."

Most of the states legalized medical marijuana by referendum, not the legislature. "Mob rule", as someone once called it, whereby a small percentage of motivated voters turn out to vote in favor. For example, 5 million people in California (population 40 million) passed medical marijuana.

Now to you, the State of California passed medical marijuana. Sane people look at that as 8% of the population of California voted in favor -- and they were probably all the dopers.