Exclusive Content > Editorials

Declaration of Independence guarantees right to smoke weed

(1/1)

Elderberry:
Lakeland Times by Colin Aspinall 3/26/2021

I’ve never understood conservatives’ reluctance — no, their vehement opposition — to legalizing weed. I can at least understand the appeal of many of their other arguments: the argument for the second amendment seems solid, based on the fact that the second amendment expressly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms; the idea of trying to limit current spending to put future generations in a better financial position is well intentioned. Even the conservative values of hard work and determination should be applauded.

But the argument for why weed should stay illegal — that it is a menace to society, that it is generally bad for people — doesn’t make any sense to me, given what conservatives believe about liberty.

“Conservatives believe that liberty, understood as a general absence of interference, and individual rights, which cannot be exhaustively listed, are natural and that government restrictions on them must be as few as possible and rigorously justified,” conservative columnist and author George F. Will wrote in “The Conservative Sensibility.”

According to him, conservatives believe these rights come from the “Declaration of Independence,” which states men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So given these beliefs, is keeping weed illegal consistent with the much guarded liberty and pursuit of happiness?

More: https://www.lakelandtimes.com/opinions/declaration-of-independence-guarantees-right-to-smoke-weed/

skeeter:
I really don’t care one way or the other but... we’re losing our first and second and fourth etc amendment rights and this guy is worried about his constitutional right to smoke weed?

The_Reader_David:
Unfortunately for the argument the Declaration of Independence has no force of law.

What is mysterious, though, is why banning alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, while banning marijuana, opium, ... (not merely their importation or interstate trade in them, but their production, possession and sale within state borders) was just fine, even before the abomination of Wicker v. Filburn turned the Commerce Clause into carte blanche for Congress to regulate anything and everything.

Hoodat:

--- Quote from: The_Reader_David on March 27, 2021, 05:41:13 PM ---What is mysterious, though, is why banning alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, while banning marijuana, opium, ... (not merely their importation or interstate trade in them, but their production, possession and sale within state borders) was just fine,
[/quote

The banning of alcohol did not require a Constitutional Amendment.
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Go to full version