Comment: chronological response...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Did I not clarify my position? (see in situ)

chronological response...

"Did I not clarify my position?" - Early on* you were rather ambivalent. You succinctly clarified a position of support to remove the Feds from the equation. Simultaneously you ambiguously suggested considering the Feds becoming more involved, but in your favor [I assume].

*"Of course I say "legalization" I mean repeal of all federal laws on cannabis. We may need a Constitutional Amendment, too."

I meant nothing demeaning in reference to Gary Johnson. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. He has yet to claim support of Constitutional amendments specifically addressing things like marijuana and marriage. However, he maintains a far more nationalistic perspective on such issues than both Ron and Rand Paul. Regarding these particular issues I prefer the Pauls' perspective. No big deal. Perhaps you would prefer Gary's. I don't know. I was suggesting.

Good luck with a Constitutional amendment. I'll flirt with absurdity here. The right to own slaves and the right to use marijuana are quite obviously very different issues and not comparable behaviorally or morally. Yet they are comparable in how they would trash and abuse the Constitution, if they were incorporated directly as such. Constitutional abuse was at the heart of alcohol prohibition. It was enacted by passing the 18th Amendment. The 21st Amendment simply repealed the 18th. Regrettably to this day, the powermad nationalists have retained control of alcohol production, but lo and behold the sanity in it all is that the regulations regarding sale, age restriction, etc. went back to the States, counties, municipalities, and individuals. Oh by the way, what makes you think it all couldn't happen again?

I am not for a "State War on Drugs". I am not "for State governments being able to lock people up for the personal decision to use cannabis". Your capacity for deductive reasoning was either damaged along the way or never fully developed. I agree it is a natural right. Talk to your neighbors. Get involved with your local politics. Aim your passions at something within your reach. You will benefit by having the mechanisms of local ordinance already in place should the likes of Rand be successful in releasing the issue from entanglement with federal bondage.

"And... As for your nit-picking of the language" - Look who's nit-picking now. I thought we were beyond that. :D

"The only thing that matters is the wording of the law or laws that need to be passed to DE-REGULATE cannabis." - I'm confused again, since you earlier compared marijuana prohibition to alcohol prohibition. Today alcohol is heavily regulated. I used to be [years ago] quite up to snuff on all the ins, outs, and particulars regarding various differences between the terms "deregulation", "decriminalization", and "legalization". In fact there were/are differences within each term as well. I admit that I might be confused in using these particular terms today. Many different scenarios are suggested by those regarding the issue, understanding those scenarios is what counts despite the words we use to label them. Build your own scenario, discuss and tweak it with others, and promote it locally. That's historically how things have worked in America. Parochialism is your friend. Grandiose ideas like establishing a specific Constitutional amendment to specifically secure your specific right to smoke pot flirt simultaneously with drawing you closer to the potential threat of a specifically increased sweeping national ban specifically denying such a specific right. Alcohol prohibition is certainly evidence of that. Such are the horrors of "Democracy" unleashed beyond its restraint of local tether.

Sure, maybe it wouldn't align with your utopian vision, but let me ask you something. If today the Rand Pauls, Barny Franks, and Ron Pauls of the world successfully moved legislation through the US House and Senate removing federal statutes regarding marijuana [sending the issue completely back into being dealt with at relatively local levels of jurisdiction], would you want the President to sign it, or veto it? Pretty simple when you don't over-think it! ;)