It almost sounds like Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg are
pro-legalization.
"...the current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general,
and our antimarijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion
that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a
student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles
of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor
that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion
occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’
views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over
a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early
1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding
patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally
millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana,9 and of the
majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal
uses of the product,10 lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval
by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs.
Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of
dampening speech suggesting—however inarticulately—that it would be
better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile
effort to ban its use entirely.
Even in high school, a rule that permits only one point of view to
be expressed is less likely to produce correct answers than the open
discussion of countervailing views. Whitney, 274 U. S., at 377
(Brandeis, J., concurring); Abrams, 250 U. S., at 630 (Holmes, J.,
dissenting); Tinker, 393 U. S., at 512. In the national debate about a
serious issue, it is the expression of the minority’s viewpoint that
most demands the protection of the First Amendment . Whatever the better
policy may be, a full and frank discussion of the costs and benefits of
the attempt to prohibit the use of marijuana is far wiser than
suppression of speech because it is unpopular."
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join,
dissenting:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZD.html