[sedtrader]

> as polls show a solid majority of Americans believe the drug should be legal

I am for the legalizing of marijuana, but considering the majority of Americans live in only 9 of the states, decisions should not be made based on the "majority". Federal law based on what the majority wanted was one of the things that the framers were afraid of. 9 states should not be able to dictate what occurs in the other 41 states and vice versa. Full state rights. Again I am for the legalization marijuana, but this needs to be a state by state decision, not federal govt.

[dbingham]

To flip this, the minority of the country that live in 39 states should not be able to dictate the law to the majority of the country who just happen to be concentrated in a relatively small area. That's tyranny of the minority, which is arguably far worse than the tyranny of the majority the framers feared.

[mieseratte]

On the other hand one could frame this as the majority of states decided and those nine states are the tyrannical minority.

[SauciestGNU]

Empty land doesn't have a right to suffrage, people do.

[mieseratte]

We're not talking about "empty land," we're talking about member states of a federation. Those members get to decide, you merely tell your state, vaguely, what you want.

[BearGoesChirp]

That's why States Rights is the solution. Let each state control what the law is for them and only for them. Tyranny of thy own self.

(Ignoring for the moment state level tyranny of the majority.)

[saas_co_de]

> this needs to be a state by state decision, not federal govt

According to the framers the federal govt has no authority at all to regulate the growing, distribution and sale of a product that takes place entirely within a state, so I do agree that this is a state decision.

But since the federal laws regulating cannabis activity within states are unconstitutional and unenforceable in the first place, eliminating or not enforcing them is merely complying with the law, not a change in law.

[Clubber]

>Federal law based on what the majority wanted was one of the things that the framers were afraid of.

Some framers were afraid of like Jefferson. Hamilton and Washington were federalists and favored a strong central government.

I personally like state power over federal. If your state sucks, you always have the option to move to another state. That's a pretty fantastic option. Of course it has it's problems too. The South struggled to get states to put money in to fight the Civil War because the central government couldn't require it, it had to beg for it.

>9 states should not be able to dictate what occurs in the other 41 states and vice versa. Full state rights. Again I am for the legalization marijuana, but this needs to be a state by state decision, not federal govt.

Not sure of the logic there. It seems like rthe 41 states are dictating to the 9 states since 41 states pot is illegal.

[dragonwriter]

> I personally like state power over federal. If your state sucks, you always have the option to move to another state. That's a pretty fantastic option.

Note that that option was not at all available for those for whom their stated sucked due to the issue that was the original focus of the “states rights” controversy in the US. It's kind of interesting that you point to the Confederacy’s difficulties in raising revenue for the Civil War as a potential drawback of state over federal power, but not the issue which motivated the Confederacy.

[Clubber]

>Note that that option was not at all available for those for whom their stated sucked due to the issue that was the original focus of the “states rights” controversy in the US.

Because that would be a massive moral crusade tangent that nobody wanted to read and was hardly relevant to the discussion.

>It's kind of interesting that you point to the Confederacy’s difficulties in raising revenue for the Civil War as a potential drawback of state over federal power, but not the issue which motivated the Confederacy.

Everybody knows the issue that motivated the Confederacy that has half a brain. I assumed everyone on here did as well.

[sedtrader]

> Not sure of the logic there.

Its really simple, if you don't understand this, you need to question your own logic. Basically the Marijuana issue should be a state decision, not dictated by the Fed Govt. What don't you understand here?

[Clubber]

>9 states should not be able to dictate what occurs in the other 41 states and vice versa.

Because the 41 states are dictating to the 9 states that pot should be illegal, not the other way around.

[knieveltech]

uh uh. Quirks of population distribution should certainly not permit a minority of citizens from driving policy in directions the rest of the country doesn't want to go. One person, one vote.

[koenigdavidmj]

California getting to decide the will of Kansas is a broken system. It feels a lot like, say, the king of England ruling the colonies without representation.

[TillE]

States are completely arbitrary political constructs. Why should Albany have power over both New York City and upstate, for example?

You need either much smaller units, or one system with a more democratic structure.

[knieveltech]

Kansas (assumably) has a working general assembly and is perfectly capable of passing legislation at the state level to express their will in whatever way they see fit. Meanwhile, at the federal level, the will of the majority of citizens is what should be represented.

[mrguyorama]

Except it's not California. It's millions of American Citizens

[aerotwelve]

Kansas and California both have equal representation in the Senate, which every federal law must pass through; there is no taxation without representation comparison to be made here.