Address my previous comment. We already have laws to criminalize theft, child abuse, violence, and welfare fraud (well the whole welfare system is not helping). I could make statements about alcoholic families that match the ones you made; should we criminalize alcohol? I could make statements about the negative consequences of watching TV all damn day and eating only fast food; should we outlaw these actions? You are using the logic of progressive thinking that believes a nanny state that controls us from the top - down is necessary for a well functioning society. The founders knew the dangers of this sort of thinking.

I don't have a clear answer for you about what to do with Meth. But this much I do know. There is more harm in attempting to legislate these things away (so many unintended consequences) than to leave them completely legal and let people excercise their own judgement and reap the benefits or consequences of their choices.

okay delta. Small matter. What do you think about freedome and individual responsibility vs. the war on drugs.

People are not really free if they have not the power over their own consciousness or the liberty to ingest what they want. All should be responsible for their own actions. In other words, if the drug addict steals from others to finance his drug habit - we already have laws against that. He will be convicted. If a person commits a violent act while on a drug - we already have laws against that. He will be convicted. Why then should governments criminalize the victimless act of possessing plant, or for that matter even a potentially dangerous drug. Guns are potentially dangerous but you would never catch me advocating that we criminalize the possession of guns. If you believe in freedom to make your own choices so long as you are not infringing on the person or property of others, then you cannot possibly support the war on drugs.

It would be intellectually consisent that if Jesus saw no evil in consuming wine in manageable quantities that he would see no evil in smoking marijuana in manageable quantities. After all, it is drunkeness or letting alcohol consume you that is a sin. And lets take a look at the alcohol drunken state and the marijuana high. Alcohol reduces inhibitions, which is what leads people to be more dramatic, make dangerous choices, not pay attention, encourage violence or aggression, and is quite frankly why alcohol can be fun. The marijuana high does not reduce inhibitions, in many cases adds more inhibitions so people question themselves more, makes some people hyper sensitive or sometimes paranoid. For example a high driver, unlike the drunk driver, is not likely to be oblivious on the road, or to drive excessively fast, or to not see the people crossing in front of them. These are the perils of drunk driving. A marijuana high is safer than an alcohol drunken state any which way you look at it. People who are high are more likely to be self aware than those who are drunk. ... Just a few considerations. It seems to me that Jesus would have a problem with something if it took your eyes off God, or encouraged wickedness, or lack of self control. You can argue alcohol does exactly that. But marijuana is different entirely.

Unless they are told by the media that he is conservative (see Bush, McCain, and Romney). The conservative credentials of those three are a joke.

What is equally as bad? You could argue maybe PCP, or synthetic heroin (Krocodile), something like that. Certainly not marijuana, weed is drastically less adictive, not violence provoking, significant harm to the body is absent, has multiple medical uses (cancer, glucoma, insomnia, etc), and has many industrial uses.

Alcohol is certainly the leading drug that induces violence. No doubt about that.

according to this columnist, yes.

I know, isn't it crazy? I thought the conservatives were supposed to be the ones defending the Consititution. What is America coming to?