Not necessarily. The feds can very easily force their hand without suing or busting into anyones home. You know how Congress got the drinking age to 21, don't you?

Yeah I was wondering what road the Federal government would take. Considering it is a slap in the face, there could be a couple, but just withholding funding could be one of them.

I fervently hope this election brings about the end of the Republican Party as we have known it for the past several years. It would not surprise me to see it break into religious right, a libertarian, and an economics-first-to-hell-with-the-rest sects. Hey, one can dream.

Wouldn't this scenario be the same for states where MJ is legal for medical use and then they drive to another state where it is illegal?

According to the feds, marijuana is as dangerous as meth and heroin. So why does it allow states to permit its use for medicinal purposes? It will be awkward for them to overturn recreational use without also overturning laws in the same states permitting medicinal use. Once that happens, maybe then people will get pissed enough to start demanding changes at DEA.

ETA: and I realize they don't acknowledge that medicinal use is legal at all, but since they've pretty much ignored it, they've implied endorsement. They don't want to do the unpopular thing and take away a drug that makes people with terminal illness feel a little better.

Ah, but crossing state lines makes it a federal issue. What if the marijuana law is written so that it can't be transported across state lines?

I'm 33girl and I had a seance and contacted Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower and all 3 of us approve this message.

They may be saying this, but it's hooey. The biggest problems associated with marijuana are associated with production and sale of the substance. I am not a fan of lazing your life away baked, but I'm also not a fan of getting blotto on alcohol or toasting your lungs with tobacco. I really think the laws for marijuana need to be correlated with alcohol. Around the country. If you're a dry county now, great, keep marijuana illegal. But otherwise, regulate it, tax the crap out of it and move on. I don't particularly want to offend the believers that Reagan was a good guy, but pulling federal funding to force all the states to change their drinking laws was a terrible thing to do. So much for Republicans and States Rights.

I think these states are bellwethers. The primary people who will be against it are the ones who are in the incarceration business because it will keep a lot of people out of jail for petty crime.

Over the last few years it has become less taboo (even NOT taboo) for a politician to be on the side of legalization. Once that tide turned, the end was near. We're not there yet, but look how far we've come from Iowa legalizing gay marriage and how many states have it now? Marijuana will follow the same slow steady march toward legalization, probably with varying rules from state to state. But that's true of alcohol sale and use, so that's ok.

(sorry for the rambling stream of consciousness post here. I am apparently REALLY tired.)

Does it really have to be that specific? Once you leave that state you are out of their jurisdiction so the laws no longer apply. I was just trying to make a point to PiKA2001 that whether or not MJ is recreational or medical the same rules of crossing state lines applies.

From my local libertarian website:
Looks like they are already trying to absorb Republicans.

There is definitely a wing of the Libertarians I can relate to, but many people associate Libertarianism with the hard right. It can also be hard left. But I agree. My prediction for the next presidential is that there will be a 3rd party candidate who gets more than 10% of the vote. And the Libertarians seem like a good choice if they can make themselves seem like the "government out of your bedroom AND your wallet" party and not the "we hate 47% of America party."

LOL. I wish there was a place for socially liberal fiscal conservatives who believe in a strong defense.

The Republican Party, if it wants to remain nationally relevant in the 20th century, has to do a lot of work. Let's see if they actually do it.

These are actually my views exactly. I classify myself as a republican because I'm extremely economically conservative.

Well, there are the blue dog Democrats (with whom I identify in any ways), but the Tea Partiers and redistricting have made them an endangered species, st least in Washington.

I really hope I'm not the only one who questions why we have a term on our President but we don't have terms on Senators and Representatives.

Some of those people in Congress need to get the hell out! Just like we get a new president every 4 to 8 years, we need some new blood in Congress!