4 ms·

What he would perhaps support was a bill to ensure that each state has the right to determine for itself the best approach to marijuana within its borders [1].

• wallace_f 8y ago
  It should be left up to the states, as O'Connor noted in Gonzalez vs Raich and as Thomas noted in the same case: the Federal Government arguably does not even have the constitutional right to do this. In other words, there is a distinct federal ban on marijuana and ending it should have been done a long time ago.
  • no-s 8y ago
    The federal gov’t has no rights. The citizens of the United States have delegated powers and authority to the government. When government officials say the law gives them a right or that the constitution gives them a right, they are simply indulging in tyranny.
• dragonwriter 8y ago
  > To me, this sounds different from ending the ban on a federal level, which is what the title would suggest. This is exactly ending the ban on a federal level. It is not affirmatively creating a federal right to marijuana which would prohibit state regulation, but then we don't do that with most things that are legal. This is pretty exactly what the state was with the end of prohibition of alcohol, for instance.
  • wiredearp 8y ago
    That does makes sense, thanks.