3 ms·
Yes, a psychoactive drug with a longstanding and controversial social history having substantial legal differences state-to-state is VERY significant and repres
by metalchianti 7y ago
Yes, a psychoactive drug with a longstanding and controversial social history having substantial legal differences state-to-state is VERY significant and representative of what statehood represents in the US. Are you from the US? Based on your OP I'm not sure how much you understand mechanics of the federation. And TBH I'm not sure how much you understand China--personally I think 1930s era fascism is a better analogy.
- greedo 7y agoThe Supremacy clause of the Constitution really has gutted the original premise of states rights. The only reason that the Federal government doesn't send in the DEA to Oregon/WA/Colorado much anymore is due to politics and culture, not legal mechanisms.
- sho 7y ago> is VERY significant and representative of what statehood represents in the US Not really. It's frigging pot. It's been de-facto legal for decades. Show me a state doing something serious, like banning guns, reversing roe v wade, changing the state language, change the voting age. Difference-between-country stuff. I should have thought of something like that for my initial post; would have reduced this silly nitpicking. And thanks, I'm not from the USA but I'm from a federation too so yeah, I have some idea. As for the China knowledge - looking forward to your cogent, evidenced retort. 请说普通话。