Originally Posted by Locke9-05

Civil liberties? There are no civil liberties to indulge in mindless substances that impair your cognition to the point of you losing control of your senses, there are no civil liberties that grant you any kind of "right" to using a substance that is unhealthy (emotionally and physically) to those around you. You may entitle yourself that right, but the US Constitution says the opposite.

The US Constitution puts Congress in charge of making decisions for the betterment of the collective population--that is in the Constitution, and they've done that. You don't need marijuana for any aspect of life, and it has many negative factors--some which are threatening and pose a risk to the safety, health, etc. of nonusers. No "civil liberty" there.

Originally Posted by Locke9-05

My views are consistent with alcohol, tobacco, drugs, the works. No one needs them--but out of all of them, the ones that have been scientifically tested and shown to manipulate the mind, or unnaturally screw with chemicals in the brain, causing for unpredictable side effects are naturally the worst, as they can never be "proven" to be consistently "harmless" to those around the user (because in some cases, they've shown to be the opposite), and there is always an unnecessary risk to people who aren't even involved with such "activities." The key word of course being unnecessary. Taking risks is one thing. Unnecessary risks are by definition ridiculous, and a substance with absolutely no pro factors benefiting the collective populace/society/etc that carries with it that unnecessary risk factor, you have a terrible combination within a substance that has no place in any society because of the effects it has on those who use it--and ten times more importantly those who don't.