Pot Criminalization: Up in Smoke?

[IMaDick]

The state will never know if they keep it in the government sector and refuse to let the people have a voice.

It's a damn shame people are so fucking complacent.

Typically, I sense that you're a Constitutionalist. But, on some matters you seem to support more of democratic than republic system. You want the electoral college done away with and direct population vote on some (or all?) Federal and State legislation, right? The framers of the Constitution are essentially noted as saying that the general public is not qualified to make wise decisions on their own.

I don't think the marijuana possession issue is a big enough concern for the majority of voters to petition outside of their elected officials, but another issue that affected a great number of people more directly might.

I think when the Government is taking from the people it's the peoples responsibility to tell them to fuck off.

Please show me the quote from the founders you referenced.

Typically I will always and have always believed the people are supposed to control the government, not the government control the people and keep them mute in the process.

Dick, the whole reason the founders chose a republic rather than democratic form was because they feared that the general public wasn't qualified (or consistent/astute) enough to make the decisions directly. Therefore, they preferred elected officials.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

I marked a couple of interesting points in your post, I make a suggestion that you inspect them together and try to reconcile them with the Constitution as written.

I think you will find the outcome enlightening.