|
FYI, as noted above, as much as the spinsters want to say this is about health care, this case is really about states' rights: can the federal government prohibit something in a state when the state says it is legal?
The health care issue provides the backdrop for the case, and holds some persuasive value for those making the arguments on either side (pro pot: "these people are in pain! why won't you let us help them?" anti pot: "these laws are loosely-worded stepping stones to legalization! won't someone think of the children?").
But, again, this case is not about health care. The Supreme Court is not deciding whether pot laws are good or bad, and is not deciding whether pot has medical applications.
I am curious, though, about a correlation: what percentage of people who support medical marijuana laws also support decriminalization? In other words, how many people on states' rights side of this issue also want to be able to smoke up legally?
Assuming the percentage is pretty high (no pun intended), is this all a smokescreen (pun intended, since I'm on a roll) for legalization?
__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka
|