Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!RottenApple wrote:Because the issue is not really about what is/is not safe or what is/not good for you. It's about control.i8godzilla wrote:Why is it we needed a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol which was legal when the country was founded and we use a perverted interpretation of the Commerce Clause to outlaw marijuana which was also legal when the country was born?
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Oregon LEO's at odds w/medical pot users having CHL's.”
- Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:47 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Oregon LEO's at odds w/medical pot users having CHL's.
- Replies: 54
- Views: 6479
Re: Oregon LEO's at odds w/medical pot users having CHL's.
- Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:32 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Oregon LEO's at odds w/medical pot users having CHL's.
- Replies: 54
- Views: 6479
Re: Oregon LEO's at odds w/medical pot users having CHL's.
Marijuana was legal in many places during prohibition. Prohibition ended in 1933 and the Marijuana Tax Act was passed in 1937 although there was some regulation prior in the Uniform Narcotic Act (1934). The first marijuana laws were in enacted by the city of El Paso in ~1903. Most Marijuana laws were passed in the southern states simply because the majority of the users were minorities. After the the 1910 Mexican Revolution waves of Mexicans came to the U.S. and introduced us to recreational use.pcgizzmo wrote:I'm sure during prohibition people said the same things some here are saying. Marijuana is no more harmful and probably less harmful than alcohol.
Just recently the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a report indicating that there is no way to win the "War on Drugs".
Why is it we needed a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol which was legal when the country was founded and we use a perverted interpretation of the Commerce Clause to outlaw marijuana which was also legal when the country was born?