S----y schumer pushing hard to legalize pot in ALL the states.

[powderman]

   
S----y schumer pushing hard to legalize pot in ALL the states.
« on: Today at 10:34:08 AM »

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/schumer-federal-pot-marijuana-legalization#&_intcmp=hp1r_2,hp1r

Schumer intensifies push for federal pot legalization as Dems control Congress, White House
Push faces hurdles, including reluctant Senate Dems, opposition from Biden and Republicans
Facebook
 

By Tyler Olson FOXBusiness
close

House passes marijuana banking bill to aid cannabis commerce
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has in recent years become an increasingly loud proponent of marijuana legalization, said on the Senate floor Tuesday that "the time has come" to end federal prohibition of the drug.


"Today is what you might call a very unofficial American holiday: 4/20," Schumer said, recognizing the day that many Americans set aside for consuming pot in its many forms.

"For decades, young men and women, disproportionately young men and women of color, have been arrested and jailed for even carrying a small amount of marijuana… Being rejected from job after job — because of this minor, minor deviation from the law," Schumer continued. "I believe the time has come to end the federal prohibition on marijuana in this country — and I am working with Senators Booker and Wyden on legislation to do just that."

He said the legislation would not "only end the federal prohibition on marijuana" but also include social justice provisions, federal taxes and regulations.


STOCKS REBOUND EVEN AS NETFLIX SINKS

The House of Representatives already passed a similar bill last year called the MORE Act. It's possible it will do so again despite a shrunken Democrat majority.

But Senate Democrats are not unanimously on board with Schumer on pot legalization – Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., both recently told Politico they are against it.

And White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Tuesday highlighted that President Biden's position "isn’t the same as what the House and Senate have proposed."

placeholder
"The president supports leaving decisions regarding legalization for recreational use up to the states; rescheduling cannabis as a Schedule II drug so researchers can study its positive and negative impacts; and, at the federal level, he supports decriminalizing marijuana use and automatically expunging any prior criminal records," she said. "He also supports legalizing medicinal marijuana."

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., however, said he believes Biden's position is actually closer to Senate and House Democrats than it may appear.

"He believes in decriminalization. And as I said to him the first time we talked about it was, my bill is no different. I think states should be able to do what they want. I think it should be legalized. But what we need to do at the federal level is delist marijuana," Booker told the "Hell & High Water Podcast."


Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., speaks during a Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship confirmation hearing on Isabella Casillas Guzman's nomination to be administrator of the Small Business Administration on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2021, in W
"His policy position on marijuana, he may say, 'I'm not for legalization, I'm for decriminalization.' As a federal official, that's where I'm trying to get," Booker said.

The distinction between legalization and decriminalization, as Booker describes it, may be the level of federal involvement in taxing, regulating or propping up legal marijuana markets and businesses. The MORE Act would do those things, and Schumer said his bill would as well.

 US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES APPROVES CANNABIS BANKING BILL

Those who oppose marijuana legalization, however, say that not only is the drug harmful but that where it's been made legal it has only exacerbated the social inequality that Schumer rails against.

placeholder
"Today, while brands and pot industry sycophants will make jokes about 4/20, it's important to remember that none of the promises of social equity have been kept," tweeted Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), a group that says it is "advocating for a fresh approach that neither legalizes, nor demonizes, marijuana." "Legalization benefits those already wealthy while increasing substance abuse issues in communities of color."

"Follow the science. Studies and science continue to show negative effects on health and families with marijuana use," the conservative Family Research Council said.


Even if the Democrats who are against legalizing marijuana were to change their minds and Biden were to get on board with Schumer's proposal, any such legislation is unlikely to pass. It would also have to clear the Senate filibuster, which would require at least 10 Senate Republicans to get on board with a bill for it to become law.

Senate Republicans who may be in favor of federal legalization – it is not likely there are 10 – may also be turned off by the elements of a Schumer bill that will, in the majority leader's words, "ensure restorative justice."

A more realistic piece of pot-related legislation that could pass Congress and be signed by Biden, however, is the SAFE Banking Act. It would protect financial services businesses, like banks, from federal repercussions when working with state-legal marijuana businesses. This could alleviate some of the problems that face the marijuana industry, including the fact that stores are targets for criminals because they do most or all of their business in cash.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The House passed that bill with bipartisan support last year and did again on Monday by a margin of 321 to 101. It's not clear when or if the Senate would take up the bill. But after it got significant bipartisan support in the House, the SAFE Banking Act would conceivably have a path to reach 60 votes in the Senate.


"This legislation will open up much-needed access to financial institutions and loans for cannabis industry entrepreneurs," Ryan Hale, the chief sales officer of Operational Security Solutions (OSS), said in a statement to Fox News. OSS provides services to marijuana businesses, including armored cash transport and regulatory compliance assistance.

 "[C]ompliance issues will remain as long as cannabis is still considered a Schedule 1 drug," Hale added.

[Dee]

Schumer is trying to appease what he considers liberal pot puffers, and cash in on a possible future tax revenue.

[Doublebass73]

According to the Bill of Rights pot has always been legal at the federal level:

Amendment X

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

Just like the 2nd Amendment, the 10th Amendment means exactly what it says. This means that pot (and every other drug) being illegal at the federal level is a violation of the 10th Amendment. Drugs are an issue for the states to decide. The sad truth is many conservatives support this federal violation of the Constitution because it suits our agenda. We as conservatives should be consistent on how we view any violation of the Constitution, otherwise we're no better than the leftists who support violating the Constitution whenever it suits their agenda.

Think about it, we all rightfully call out the ATF as being unconstitutional yet none of us call out the DEA for being unconstitutional even though both agencies are violating the Bill of Rights. Both are federal alphabet agencies, the only difference is one is violating the 2nd Amendment while one is violating the 10th Amendment.

[ironglows]

.
  Perhaps he has always been inclined to, "not leave home without it"!  If it is legalized nationwide, then he will be more comfortable when he travels, since he won't have to, "do without" !

[NWBear]

.
  Perhaps he has always been inclined to, "not leave home without it"!  If it is legalized nationwide, then he will be more comfortable when he travels, since he won't have to, "do without" !

If you read DB73's well written and thought out explanation the Fed's really have no say - it is REALLY up to the states as he says.  I addition the "war on drugs" should be chalked up to another "great idea" that didn't work out, like the war in Vietnam and the war in Afghanistan.

[Argent 88]

I still wouldn't use it anyway, it makes me feel sick. Tried some of that Cali medical crap my little sister wanted me to try. Crashed in the bed and didn't wake up for hours. My wife got angry and asked her WT* did you just give to my husband!!!

[Doublebass73]

.
  Perhaps he has always been inclined to, "not leave home without it"!  If it is legalized nationwide, then he will be more comfortable when he travels, since he won't have to, "do without" !

If you read DB73's well written and thought out explanation the Fed's really have no say - it is REALLY up to the states as he says.  I addition the "war on drugs" should be chalked up to another "great idea" that didn't work out, like the war in Vietnam and the war in Afghanistan.

Thank you, I'm always saddened by conservatives who openly support the government's blatant violations of the 10th Amendment.

[nw_hunter]

.
  Perhaps he has always been inclined to, "not leave home without it"!  If it is legalized nationwide, then he will be more comfortable when he travels, since he won't have to, "do without" !

If you read DB73's well written and thought out explanation the Fed's really have no say - it is REALLY up to the states as he says.  I addition the "war on drugs" should be chalked up to another "great idea" that didn't work out, like the war in Vietnam and the war in Afghanistan.

I have to agree! The war on drugs has been a total failure, and has ruined the lives of some people innocent of any wrong doing. The Democrats only want to legalize it for monetary reasons. I think it should be decriminalized as well. Like alcohol, there is no way to stop people from using it. And if you were to test the destructive results from using either, alcohol is by far worse.The Feds have taken over regulating to many things that should be controlled at State levels. This is only another.

[ironglows]

 .
      I have little concern if some adult wants to smoke or inject themselves into oblivion, so long as there is some way they can be prevented from driving, operating machinery, performing surgery, engineering dams, or partial functioning at any job or activity which will endanger other, non-users.

  So far as the old, worn sock  of a retort.."alcohol is worse"... It likely is just as bad, and I don't like anyone fogged by alcohol, trying to do any of the above tasks either.

  I wouldn't feel any loss if both illicit drugs and alcohol dried up tomorrow morning !  The point being, we already have alcohol, so why legalize another mind-bender that innocent people have to deal with !

     Perhaps some would have a different perspective, if their brother had been killed by a drunk driver...

[Doublebass73]

.
      I have little concern if some adult wants to smoke or inject themselves into oblivion, so long as there is some way they can be prevented from driving, operating machinery, performing surgery, engineering dams, or partial functioning at any job or activity which will endanger other, non-users.

Making things illegal does nothing to "prevent" people from committing crimes. We complain all the time how futile it is for liberals to think that banning guns will prevent crimes yet here you are believing that somehow the fact that drugs are already banned will prevent people from driving while high. You're barking up the wrong tree. Clearly our punishments for driving while drunk or high aren't enough of a deterrent.

 

So far as the old, worn sock  of a retort.."alcohol is worse"... It likely is just as bad, and I don't like anyone fogged by alcohol, trying to do any pf the above tasks.

They both impair you but alcohol impairs you much worse. People don't black out from weed like they do from alcohol.

 

I wouldn't feel any loss if both illicit drugs and alcohol dried up tomorrow morning !  The point being, we already have alcohol, so why legalize another mind-bender that innocent people have to deal with !

I wouldn't feel any loss either since I don't use but I have to ask, why are you in favor of the federal government violating the 10th Amendment? I thought you were a "conservative"? Don't conservatives always preach rule of law and following the Constitution? Or is that only when it suits your agenda like liberals?

   

Perhaps some would have a different perspective, if their brother had been killed by a drunk driver...

I've lost many friends to drunk driving. It's gut wrenching so I am in favor of harsh punishments for anyone caught drunk driving, even first offense. We lose 10K+ Americans each year to it so clearly we need mandatory jail sentences for first offenders if we're ever to save lives.

[ironglows]

.
      I have little concern if some adult wants to smoke or inject themselves into oblivion, so long as there is some way they can be prevented from driving, operating machinery, performing surgery, engineering dams, or partial functioning at any job or activity which will endanger other, non-users.

Making things illegal does nothing to "prevent" people from committing crimes. We complain all the time how futile it is for liberals to think that banning guns will prevent crimes yet here you are believing that somehow the fact that drugs are already banned will prevent people from driving while high. You're barking up the wrong tree. Clearly our punishments for driving while drunk or high aren't enough of a deterrent.

  There are heavy penalties for murder, rape, sexual molestation and arson.  I would hope they have some deterrent  value...or should we drop those penalties?

 

So far as the old, worn sock  of a retort.."alcohol is worse"... It likely is just as bad, and I don't like anyone fogged by alcohol, trying to do any pf the above tasks.

They both impair you but alcohol impairs you much worse. People don't black out from weed like they do from alcohol.
  Cyanide will kill quicker than strychnine, but I wouldn't recommend either as a steady diet !

 

I wouldn't feel any loss if both illicit drugs and alcohol dried up tomorrow morning !  The point being, we already have alcohol, so why legalize another mind-bender that innocent people have to deal with !

I wouldn't feel any loss either since I don't use but I have to ask, why are you in favor of the federal government violating the 10th Amendment? I thought you were a "conservative"? Don't conservatives always preach rule of law and following the Constitution? Or is that only when it suits your agenda like liberals?
  I am a conservative, but unlike Libertarians, conservatives have a sense of the need for some "law and order".  Do you see any reason for speed laws, laws against killing or knowingly spreading a disease?

   

Perhaps some would have a different perspective, if their brother had been killed by a drunk driver...

I've lost many friends to drunk driving. It's gut wrenching so I am in favor of harsh punishments for anyone caught drunk driving, even first offense. We lose 10K+ Americans each year to it so clearly we need mandatory jail sentences for first offenders if we're ever to save lives.

  Perhaps what would be best is if parents would start teaching early, the dangers of dope, drugs and drunkeness.  Barring that, if adults would just use their brain to eschew these bad habits in the first place!
 But alas..we have all kinds of parents and all kinds of 'adults' .

   C'est la vie !

[Doublebass73]

There are heavy penalties for murder, rape, sexual molestation and arson.  I would hope they have some deterrent  value...or should we drop those penalties?

You missed my point completely. Let me make it simple, banning inanimate objects with the hope that it will prevent crime is useless whether those inanimate objects are drugs or guns. The black market will always provide inanimate objects. My point was we need heavier punishments for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in order to have a bigger deterrent. What we're doing now clearly isn't working if we have over 10,000 drunk driving deaths each year. Do you disagree?

 

They both impair you but alcohol impairs you much worse. People don't black out from weed like they do from alcohol.
  Cyanide will kill quicker than strychnine, but I wouldn't recommend either as a steady diet !

Verbal diarrhea answer. I didn't say I recommended either as a steady diet, I simply stated the fact that one is more dangerous than the other. Over 10,000 people were killed by drunk drivers last year. How many people did stoned drivers kill?

 

  I am a conservative, but unlike Libertarians, conservatives have a sense of the need for some "law and order".  Do you see any reason for speed laws, laws against killing or knowingly spreading a disease?

You are slinging BS now. The government violating the 10th Amendment is not "law and order" so if that's what "conservatives" are advocating I want no part of it. Do you not comprehend the meaning of the 10th Amendment or are you okay with Constitutional violations if they suit your agenda? It's one or the other, the 10th Amendment is just as plainly written as the 2nd Amendment and all the others so given your ability to write in the English language and higher than average vocabulary I find it hard to believe that you don't comprehend the 10th Amendment which leads us to the latter question. The Bill of Rights isn't a suggestion, it's a set of laws for the government to follow. You're openly advocating for the government to violate the law of the land. That doesn't sound very "conservative" or "law and order" to me or anyone else with a brain.

[nw_hunter]

We have law and order to cover people driving Impaired. One impairment the courts sometimes forgive is Seniors driving impaired. I'll be 78 in June, and my license will expire in 2023. If my reflexes, vision and hearing continue to worsen, I won't renew, even tho I'm sure I could. My night vision is best described as dangerous, so I only drive at night if I have to, and it's on familiar, well lit streets. Knowing this, if I cause an accident because of it, and Heaven forbid a death. I will be just as guilty of driving impaired as a drunk, or someone on drugs. Impaired is Impaired.

[Goldie]

With all the talk of the people fogged by alcohol and mind bending pot it is interesting to see someone finally paint the picture of old people who have lost their abilities and are driving on the roads. I see more dangerous things from the annual influx of older snowbirds in our area and their driving habits which results in more traffic accidents than impaired driving. But most old folks won't admit it.

[Jump Master]

Sure, what a great idea. Take the guns out of our hands and make it legal to smoke pot everywhere you go. That sounds so much safer "Shoemaker."

[ironglows]

.
  That is a problem also.  A lady I know who died about 2 years ago, was severely impaired visually, drove until her husband (suffering from Alzheimers) was institutionalized.  It was then the doctor squashed he license.

  I won't second guess the doc, but he seemed a bit late.  Then too, she only drove between home church, the local store and the gas station..all within this small hamlet.

  If I see any  of those things NW mentioned, creeping up on me, I will likely refrain from driving.  Actually, I wouldn't have to..because my kids would arrange to have my license pulled.

  At the present, often when my son has a rush order on a distant and intricate photo shoot, including a drone
  flight, especially for mapping, I will ride along with him. Then on the return trip, I will drive the business van, while he uses his computer to start the editing process.

   I have no doubt, he wouldn't do that if he couldn't trust my driving...

[Davyboy]

Interesting discussion.  (I’m reminded of the other thread about libertarians). 
I too, have seen the disastrous effects of alcohol and drug abuse.  Both are dangerous (I hate that word in its common usage).  People seem to have learned to control, mostly, alcohol usage.  But drugs, such as meth, opiates, or cocaine types, are very quickly addictive, and lead to a physical and psychological NEED for more frequent and more intense usage.  This leads to abandonment and neglect of societal, and familial responsibilities.  The users / addicts are not a “problem”, until their supply runs out, then they turn to theft and violence to get more,  the withdrawals are much more severe than with alcohol.  I support, mostly, restrictions on availability( war on drugs)(people are selfish whores), and protection (always) of non-users  from impaired users.  We all have God-given rights, up until those rights interfere with other peoples’ rights.  We agree to abide by certain restrictions and responsibilities to maintain a civilized society. Where that line is drawn is why we have discussions like this. 

[Doublebass73]

Interesting discussion.  (I’m reminded of the other thread about libertarians). 
I too, have seen the disastrous effects of alcohol and drug abuse.  Both are dangerous (I hate that word in its common usage).  People seem to have learned to control, mostly, alcohol usage.  But drugs, such as meth, opiates, or cocaine types, are very quickly addictive, and lead to a physical and psychological NEED for more frequent and more intense usage.  This leads to abandonment and neglect of societal, and familial responsibilities.  The users / addicts are not a “problem”, until their supply runs out, then they turn to theft and violence to get more,  the withdrawals are much more severe than with alcohol.  I support, mostly, restrictions on availability( war on drugs)(people are selfish whores), and protection (always) of non-users  from impaired users.  We all have God-given rights, up until those rights interfere with other peoples’ rights.  We agree to abide by certain restrictions and responsibilities to maintain a civilized society. Where that line is drawn is why we have discussions like this.

The key thing that a lot of conservatives miss is that it's possible to have rule of law AND abide by the Constitution (also rule of law).

It is without the question the federal government has been violating the 10th Amendment by having federal drug laws. It's no different that federal gun laws violating the 2nd Amendment yet conservatives actively support the feds violating the 10th Amendment because it suits their agenda. Conservatives always preach that the Constitution is the law of the land yet with this issue we have hypocrisy at its finest. How sad is is that conservatives agree with this violation of the Bill of Rights?

Drug laws are a states rights issue, period. If states want to ban or legalize drugs it's up to them, not the feds.

Drugs have been banned for decades yet we have a massive drug problem in this country so clearly that approach hasn't worked. How about we try a different approach? How about we punish the hell out of people who drive drunk and high? How about we punish the hell out of people who commit crimes while drunk or high? How about we try other different approaches rather than support a policy that is unconstitutional oh and by the way has proven itself to not work after decades of trying?

[Davyboy]

DB73, I agree with you in principle.  I’m struggling with myself on how I can consistently define my views. The feds are way over the line in certain respects. State and local governance is important to me.  The pols in Madison WI seem out of reach me in rural central Wisconsin.  But how far down the road to tribalism and clannish rule do we go?  Weed is illegal in WI, but IL, MI and MN (legal) are a short drive by car.  Chicago has very strict gun restrictions, but a huge murder and violence problem.  Beetlegeuse blames it on Indiana guns.  How do we enforce States Rights borders? 
How about consumer protection and product safety laws?  Medical, environmental and highway standards?  My guess is that some “patchwork” of laws would cause as many problems as solutions.  The world is a lot smaller than it used to be.  Corporate and industrial forces have much wider and quicker influence than they did in 1776.  Including product availability.  We are, in Democracy, ruled by the consent we have given to the government.  Trouble is, I (we) seem to be running short of consent, going more toward contempt.

[Davyboy]

Maybe somewhat far-fetched tribalism. 
Some states have capital punishment.  Electric chair, lethal injection, firing squad, hanging.  All subject to oversight by the Federal Supreme Court.  Cruel and unusual punishment (US Constitution).
Local capital punishment: Makia Bryan “Ima stab the **life outa you” for locking me out of Granny’s house. Local oversight.
No I ain’t smoking any funny stuff.  Sorry for hijacking the thread about Chucky Shumer’s pot plan

[ironglows]

.
  Perhaps an enlightening discussion concerning Conservatism vs Libertarianism in another thread, is in order.  Leaving personalities out, but just discussing the merits/demerits of either one.

 We may all gain some understanding by it...

[Doublebass73]

On this particular issue as it relates to the OP, Schumer trying to legalize pot in all the states is just as blatant of a 10th Amendment violation as making pot illegal in all of the states was originally. It's not up to the feds to make pot legal or illegal. Back when alcohol was banned at least it was done legally with a Constitutional amendment, now we just ban things by ignoring the Bill of Rights as if it doesn't exist.

The 10th Amendment clearly states that the federal government is only given the powers granted to it by the Constitution, everything else is reserved for the states. Since the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate narcotics it's clearly a state issue. There should be no difference between what Conservatives believe on this issue and what Libertarians believe on this issue since Conservatives always preach following the Constitution (as do Libertarians) so given that fact could one of you Conservatives who supports the ongoing federal ban on drugs explain why it's okay for the federal government to violate the 10th Amendment?

I won't hold my breath for an answer.

[Doublebass73]

.
  Perhaps an enlightening discussion concerning Conservatism vs Libertarianism in another thread, is in order.  Leaving personalities out, but just discussing the merits/demerits of either one.

 We may all gain some understanding by it...

.
Okay. And  One thing to consider counter to DB73's 10th and Con arguments is MJ, like hard drugs, is most often grown in different states or countries and transported over state and country borders,  which brings 'commerce law and regulations' into play.

.TM7

Commerce law and regulations are for legal goods that are sold between states and countries, not black market items. Try again.

[Doublebass73]

And also contraband or unregulated trade.
Since the PTB wants to normalize MJ trade it would come under federal regulation, and as long as it is interstate contraband it could likewise  be federally controlled. Certainly fed and state taxed.

Interesting to note NH is surrounded by MJ states.... A thought is to ask or coerce  those states supplying MJ etc to impaired drivers to pay damages and buy back their pot. LoL on that because NH is going to he!! like everywhere else.

.TM7

Just because the feds choose to regulate something does not make it Constitutional, see the ATF for an example. You're making the same type of argument that liberals make when they support Constitutional violations that suit their agenda.

[Davyboy]

I'm no constitutional scholar, certainly no expert.  I've heard it said that the Federal government's only responsibilities are the borders and national defense.  They've gone far beyond that!  How much is too much?
What do we do about it?  That's another discussion, I'd be happy to participate as a contributor, not as the ultimate judge.  As to the MJ issue, I still think it should be illegal.  For reasons I've stated above, and that's just one man's opinion.

[magooch]

I remember living when and where there were virtually no drugs other than alcohol.  The advent of all sorts of drugs was possibly the worst thing that has ever plagued our society.  Drugs and the people who use them are a crime against society.  Freedom and liberty are not enhanced by this horrible crap.  in an ideal world you might be able to tolerate intoxicants if people respected other's rights.  We don't have that.

[Doublebass73]

The Preamble of the Con allows and encourages people to act nationally for the welfare of the country and doesn't insist states must act independently all the time.

In fact the 10th says: - ->
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

OR TO THE PEOPLE <--

I assume that means 'people' of the United States and who recognize and abide by the national Constitution.

Its interesting to note the liberal MJ factions used your states rights interpretation to get their MJ normalizing laws passed state by stzte.
Another interesting facet is those libs and conservatives who like to compare RTBA with RTBSmoking MJ saying guns and MJ buds are inanimate objects. That is a flawed conflation as I have never seen anyone smoke or ingest guns, hammers, axes, or knives; but that is the exact utility of MJ and drugs - - to be ingested by individuals for the purpose of causing altered cognitive, and metabolic,  and neurological states. Same with alcohol, too. The desired  results can alter judgement,  reflexes, vision and cognitive ablities. I gather alot of people think such individuals in these altered states (called 'under the influence' legally) can and often negatively affect those citizens choosing not to be 'under the influence ' who are pursuing life, liberty, and happiness.

.TM7

You are incorrect. "The People" are the people of the sovereign states, not the people of the country as a whole. Somebody from California has no say as to what happens within the borders of Louisiana, etc. regarding state laws. That's what the 10th Amendment was all about. Using your argument "The People" of California would have a say in Georgia's new election laws, etc. We know that's not the case.

Also, I hate to break the news to you but the liberal MJ faction was actually correct in the method they used in getting MJ legalized within the states. I realize that liberals are massive hypocrites but they actually used the 10th Amendment correctly when it came to MJ. It's equally hypocritical of conservatives to ignore the text of the 10th Amendment because it doesn't suit their agenda when it comes to drugs.

Ask yourself this question. If the point you are trying to argue are correct then why is it that during prohibition they used a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol nationally? It's because they were actually following the Constitution back then instead of ignoring it like they are now. The only way to legally ban MJ nationally would also be with a Constitutional Amendment. You should be pushing for that instead of advocating that the federal government violate the Constitution.

[Dee]

And what was that Amendment that they used to ban alcohol?

It was the 18th Amendment banning alcohol in 1917, and the 18th Amendment is the ONLY constitutional amendment to ever be repealed.

Alcohol prohibition was accomplished through THE VOLSTEAD ACT (18th Amendment). Then in 1933 I believe, the VOLSTEAD ACT (18th Amendment)was repealed making alcohol legal again.

Also the Constitution "supercedes" state law.

[Doublebass73]

I'm no constitutional scholar, certainly no expert.  I've heard it said that the Federal government's only responsibilities are the borders and national defense.  They've gone far beyond that!  How much is too much?
What do we do about it?  That's another discussion, I'd be happy to participate as a contributor, not as the ultimate judge.  As to the MJ issue, I still think it should be illegal.  For reasons I've stated above, and that's just one man's opinion.

Fortunately the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights in plain, easy to understand English. The federal government's responsibilities go a little bit beyond what you mentioned but not much beyond that. The 10th Amendment states that powers not expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states. Nowhere in the Constitution are the thousands of federal alphabet agencies mentioned therefore the ATF, DEA, DHS and whatever else you can think of are all unconstitutional.

There's nothing wrong with MJ being illegal if it's done legally according to the 10th Amendment. MJ can be made illegal nationally with a Constitutional Amendment. Read the 18th Amendment which banned alcohol, that was the correct way to do it according to the Constitution. The same could be done with MJ. Also, each state has the power to make it legal or illegal.

[Doublebass73]

And what was that Amendment that they used to ban alcohol?

Alcohol prohibition was accomplished through THE VOLSTAD ACT. Then in 1933 I believe, the VOLSTAD ACT was repealed making alcohol legal again.

They used the 18th Amendment to ban alcohol. The Volstead Act only defined the terms of enforcement, it didn't actually ban alcohol.

Amendment XVIII

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.