Why is pot illegal?

Give me one good reason.

>>40

Well their argument is valid, personal consumption does effect the market and thereby Interstate Commerce which they have jurisdiction over.

If it was legal, no NGINGEIENROEJA mgiopasng[oisfga. That's why.

>>40
i dont think its anything that deep, its more along hte lines of,
people make money from regulating and smugling pot than if it was legal where there would be no gain for politians and all the money would go to corporations

>>41
False.  You are taking the meaning of interstate commerce much too far, since you can apply the same reasoning to anything done by the individual (not just purchased or created -- since services are commerce, then anything you DO must affect interstate commerce by your own reasoning!).

At any rate, claiming jurisdiction and then summarily banning something is hardly in line with the American principle of limited government.  The government is designed to confine itself to very few issues of larger importance.  This principle has been broken in too many ways to count anymore.

We're unavoidably back to my original assertion, to wit:

The base problem here is that the government thinks it can deny the people the right to grow a plant and consume it personally.

>>35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

It looks like in the case you referenced, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court restrained the power of the Federal govt, they didn't increase it. 

>>44
Yeah, that broad definition of interstate commerce was total bullshit.  The founders obviously had the intent of limiting the ability of the Federal government to regulate the activities of the people.  In their decision expanding the commerce clause they pretty much said the Feds can regulate whatever the fuck they want since whatever it is will have some distant effect on commmerce and was thus within their regulatory power under the commerce clause...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
Anyway yeah, something I'd like to add - I personally agree very much with US v. Lopez.  Carrying a gun within 1000 feet of a school is not going to have any significant effect on interstate commerce, ESPECIALLY if it is concealed.  The Feds trying to turn this into an activity that can be regulated by the Federal government is ridiculous - it is obviously outside their authority under the commerce clause.  The conservative wing's narrow reading of the commerce clause in this instance is clearly correct.  The Feds don't have the authority to regulate the carrying guns - particularly if concealed - within a thousand feet of a school.  This is within the province of state jurisdiction, not Federal.  According to wikipedia, the court's holding for this case was:

"Possession of a gun near a school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. A law prohibiting guns near schools is a criminal statute that does not relate to commerce or any sort of economic activity."

And they are right, imo.  The Federal government was overreaching their authority provided by the constitution, and it was good that the conservative judges wanted to put it back in its box. 

Paper

Because if it was legal, the government would make less money on it