367
« on: May 24, 2002, 04:30:00 PM »
No politician can afford to appear soft on drugs, even though most of them have experimented, is because of the demographics of the people who actually vote. Most of the voting public is older people mid 40's to the elderly. Most of these people are quite terrified of crack-heads and drug crazed bikers. These are also "those" people who need to be locked up because they are Soooooo weak they can't handle their booze or what ever. This is all DRUGS fault, DRUGS have "ruined" our country and so forth. Therefore, a politician who is soft on drugs is an un-American, terrorist supporting, pink-o commie bastard. I guess you get the point. Perhaps this doesn't apply to California as they seem to be a little different. This could be southern bias though.
Further, the District of Columbia is not a state and is goverened, ultimately, by Congress. Therefore DC falls under only federal law. Federal Law forbids the use of marijuna among numerous other chemicals with great entertainment value, or requires a perscription from a licensed physician. Firther, being governed by Congress, Congress is the only body that can make policy changes of that nature. Had DC been a state, the 9th (I think) ammendment would have given them a case against the Fed. Once again proving my initial point that NO politician can afford to appear "soft" on drugs.
Clay
PS Personally, I think all drugs should be legal and have the hell taxed out of them. The money from taxes being solely for the purpose of universal treatment on demand. No question, no "three strikes" nor any other of that nonsense. This is workable, the war on drugs is not.