Yeah, i agree with burnt as well. I even think that when it's about stuff like prohibition of substances, you better just leave it to states themselves. I bet california or massachusets would want to adopt a more liberal (and pragmatic) policy while states such as kansas wouldn't even want to consider this as a serious option. When it's about gambling, this is already the case. i don't see why narcotics would have to be fundamentally different.

With large federal organisations like the USA, the EU or india and china, it would always be best to determine what could better be left to the memberstates and what would better be done on a federal level.

I think it would be a good thing for instance, if the EU would actually state within it's 'constitution' that defending and protecting the soevereignty of it's memberstates would be the prime goal of itself as an organisation.
The only time that a state would have to deliver some of it's soevereignty to the EU, would be when the net-result would actualy be that it's soevereignty on the whole would be served.

This November is going to be interesting in Caifornia. There is a ballot measure called the Tax Cannibis Act, which would legalize recreational usage and decriminalize it.

It would have the same restrictions as Alcohol...21 to buy, no driving under the influence. But you'd be able to go buy it in a store and/or grow your own.

I sure hope it passes, though I don't smoke anymore. Wouldn't mind a brownie to two occasionally!

What do you expect the outcome will be?

Well, they predict that it would bring in about $1 Billion in taxes, and save the state $500 million or so in law enforcement. Last I heard it had more support than not, and if the election were held today would most likely pass.

That would be great. If a large state like california is to adopt such a policy, people all over the world will start thinking. It will shed a new light on the issue of substances and the law. Finally, prohibition would no longer be something that speaks for itself.

Because the stakes are so high, i assume that there's a lot of heavy campaining from pro and contra-interest groups going on?

Interestingly enough, I haven't heard/seen any campaigning for either side. Most people don't even know that it will be on the ballot. They sure picked the right name for the measure in the Tax Cannibis Act. Even people who are against weed, might vote for it for the tax revenue.

I haven't had television for the past month or so, and not planning on getting it again until at least September, so they could be advertising begun in the last month that I wouldn't know about. September/October is when it is really going to get interesting, as the Supreme Court took away nearly all restrictions for campaign advertising...the only commercials anyone will see this fall will be political.

Ya hopefully it passes cuz here in nevada we seem to follow californias lead. We have medical wich I attribute to cali. Only problem with medical here is the law doesn't protect you from being fired from work getting popped on a drug test. Even if you have your card. Also I'm a commercial motor vehicle driver and I would have to surrender my liscence and would lose my job.

btw, do they actually drink tea at those tea parties?, because i saw some of it on TV and i didn't see any teapot.

Naw...they just hang the tea bags from revolutionary period hats.

That's why some people call them, "Tea Baggers"

I bet they like that.

So today i heard that one of these lunatic's from delaware wants to forbid masturbation. .... I don't know if she just want's it to be a delaware law or whether she wants to make it a federal law (probably the last)...Anyway, they always claim that they want to 'take america back' and all the other stuff, like that they're for freedom and such...?

I would say that they have a rather peculiar definition of the word freedom, if they want to place camera's in everyone's house to see if nobody's doing some illegal wanking in this 'land of the free' as they'd like to see it.

These tea-party nuts are the ones that desperately believe in the right to cary guns to 'keep the government in check', but if these american taliban clowns ever become the government themselves than i think you realy have to arm yourself.

I wonder what would happen if someone would put some LSD in their tea? Would that cure them or would they become even funnier?

Maybe they are preparing to tax wanking!

whatever happened to the "center" of both parties? Some believe that the way voting districts are drawn, as well as the way low-turnout primary elections work, here in the USA ends up pushing the political fringes into the victory column. The result is that vitrolics, rhetoric and polemics (that's today's Greek lesson) go up, and good government goes down ... or should I say "tanks". The voting populace is on to this ... but all they're able to do is throw out one bunch of nutcase bums every two years and replace them with another bunch from the other end. It's about to happen again next month....which is how we'll end up with these "anti-masturbationists" in government for the next two years.

But don't forget, Clinton's Surgeon General got fired for being PRO-masturbation, so maybe this won't be such a big deal after all. Maybe we'll end up in a place where smoking weed is legal, but masturbating is illegal? I'm beginning to believe in parallel universes...

States' rights are where it's at in the USA. Ron Paul calls it "50 laboratories of innovation." We could maximize freedom. Imagine a country with such diverse political systems, but still united through a minimal federal government. So, you can travel freely, everyone speaks the same language, and the federal government regulates interstate relations so individual states can't impose tariffs on or war with other states. You would be guaranteed the freedoms in the Constitution, but also the freedom to choose a specific political system. Suppose you want a state where drugs are legal and guns controlled, you could move there. State policies would gradually change as people left one state for another. Political competition to attract inhabitants is what you would find.

Suppose you are state that DOES NOT what drugs and you have a state bordering yours that is reponsible for a flood of drugs into your state?

Suppose you are a state where the people DO NOT want gay marriage and have voted so twice on a state wide ballot but the gay minority keeps overturning the vote of the majority in a court of law because of gay lawyers and pro gay judges?

Suppose you are a state that DOES NOT want to be a safe haven for illegal immigants and their families?

Suppose you are a state that DOES NOT want abortion and you want to get one?

Suppose you live in a state that DOES NOT want mosques and sharia law and you are a muslim?

Supose that people have jobs, family, friends, and history in their states and dont want to leave and go to another state?

Sounds a bit like the european union. You would not speak of a real country anymore, but of an empire. Not by definition a bad idea, for europe it might very well work, once it's properly organised hopefully one day.....It could work, but you're no longer a country.

For instance, if realy many mexicans would immigrate to california and eventually spanish would become california's official language, would that be OK for the (american) federal government?

It is an interesting concept. Europe is right in the middle of the proces of becoming such an empire right now. There's no way of telling wich way it will go. Could be the right way, could be the wrong way, and the whole thing could fail.

But you got to have philosophical debates about this, considering for instance, wich values you hold dear and how you would want to uphold them. I don't realy see that happening now, since politic's is soooo boring.

If the united states of europe ever becomes an actual empire instead of a fantasy of some politicians and businesmen, i hope it would be a bit more modest than all the empire's of the past and present have been thus far, and i hope it would be a bit more democratic two.

Interesting concept, but it needs a little more consideration.

In Europe, each state has its own nationalist streak. In the US, only Texas really holds anything resembling that IMO. Nevertheless, our nationality is American throughout and even though I support a minimalist federal government, my impression of the EU is that it's bound by a rather loose regulatory body. Doesn't England still use the pound? Consolidation of currency and militaries would be neccessary. What's going to be the first language? I'm not one of those people that thinks the EU is neccessarily a bad thing, but I don't think it has the same potential as the United States for such diversity within a single nation. The EU has more cultural and historical boundaries to dissolve.

Yes, it's very loose. Yet the EU has a federal structure. The thing is that nobody mentions it because it isn't politically correct. Speaking of europe as an empire is very, very taboo.

But that taboo is very bad, because it makes europe an invissible and thus undemocratic empire.
because an empire it is: the largest economy in the world, larger than nafta, close to china and the USA combined, over 500 million people, two nuclear powers...It comes close to china and india in that respect.

It would need to be adressed. Do we want to be an empire or not? being an empire and pretending not to be one is the worst of the two if you ask me.

Tea party is corporate backed Trojan horse packaged to appeal to ignorant uninformed .
to expect anything constructive or socially progressive is a total waste of time.

Well said.