Allow The Export of The F-22 Fighter To Our Closest Allies 

With the DOD planning to stop the purchase of additional F-22 fighters, it's likely that the production line for the F-22 will close. When a weapons production line closes, there is little likelihood of ever restarting it in the event of a war.

At the same time, we can't afford to keep the production line open ourselves. Unlike previous times we've shutdown fighter programs, there's no replacement programs planned in the immediate future. The 6th generation technology for a purely unmanned fighter is a decade, and, probably more, away from being a practically deployed weapon.

There's no reason why this fighter can't be sold to our closest allies like Australia, Japan, Great Britain, and Germany. These allies are essential to a stable, democratic world and have proven themselves responsible with safeguarding advanced technology in the past. We've even shared ICBM technology and nuclear weapons technology with Great Britain; Great Britain's main nuclear deterrent force consists of US made Trident II-D5 SLBMs with warheads developed through joint nuclear weapons technology partnerships.

Given the risk to the world posed by rogue nations and terrorist groups, it's important to keep those close allies well equipped, militarily. In the event of a war, their help will be essential. The US can't financially afford the costs of being the world's sole policeman.

As far as the fear of the inadvertent release of stealth technologies, I'm sure that every intelligence agency worth their paycheck across the world already has access to the F-22 technology. F-117s with 1st generation stealth technology have already been lost in combat.

From a purely financial perspective, exporting the F-22 would help create jobs in the US and help our trade balance. We can use the revenue generated though exports to help build the 6th generation fighters, which will probably be unmanned.

Tactically speaking, by the time the first planes are exported and crews trained to fly them, we will already have a trained and experienced F-22 fighter pilot pool. We will also probably be very close to production of a 6th generation fleet of planes. The risk of letting this technology go offshore at the end of the US order production run is pretty low. After all, the F-22 is a late 1980's technology.

By allowing the export of the F-22, after US orders are filled, we can keep the production line open, create jobs for US workers, improve our trade balance, and generate much needed revenue for the development of the next generation of fighter aircraft. At the same time, we are strengthening the allies we need to stop rogue nations. Japan, especially, is in need of advanced fighters to counter potential threats from North Korea and China.

Global Treaty Banning Ballistic Missiles 

With the recent test of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles by North Korea, it's clear that purely bilateral weapons control treaties between the US and Russia are obsolete. Nuclear weapons, unfortunately, have been globalized.

The problem with ballistic missiles has always been that their short flight time gives other nations little opportunity to determine if the intent of the country launching them. With more and more countries obtaining ballistic missile technology, there is a far greater chance that a rocket launch will be mistaken for an attack, possibly with nuclear weapons. Many of these countries lack the early warning and tracking capability to determine the intent of a launch. As a result, the policy of many of these nations is to "launch on warning".

I think it's time for a worldwide treaty banning military ballistic missiles. Any military ballistic rocket should be limited in range to whatever is possible through modern long range artillery fire. Current gunpowder based artillery can fire, at most, around 60 miles.

I think jet powered cruise missles should be exempt from such a treaty as they have the same, or longer, flight time than most long range bombers, which gives a nation time to determine the intent of the launch and intercept an accidental launch. Additionally, the tracking systems required for detecting cruise missiles is usually much less sophisticated than the one needed for tracking an exoatmospheric ballistic missile.

From the US perspective, such a treaty would do little to harm our defense posture and would enhance global stability. Moving our weapons posture from ballistic missiles to cruise missiles and bombers would only reflect the current military reality. Ballistic missiles have proven to be pretty militarily useless because of the risk of collateral damage and the risk of an accidental assessment that the use of one is a nuclear attack.

Codifiy States Rights on Marijuana Regulation Within Their Borders 

There has been a large amount of activity on the boards and in the media regarding tax and regulation proposals for marijuana.

It seems that their needs to be a phased approach where the Federal Government formally recognizes the rights of the States, in a signed law, to regulate and enforce marijuana laws within their own borders. It should prohibit Federal law enforcement to become involved in purely intrastate marijuana commerce, unless formally asked to do so by the State.

Any law should retain Federal authority over interstate or international transfers of marijuana, but leave marijuana regulation and enforcement authority for intrastate commerce solely with the State governments. Medical marijuana laws are one example of this intrastate regulation and commerce.

If California wishes to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, they should be allowed to do so within their State. However, transfer of marijuana from California to Oregon would still fall under Federal jurisdiction, so would transfer from Mexico to California. If a state wishes to keep it illegal under the current Federal system, then they can do so.

This approach doesn't advocate full legalization, but allows the States to craft their own solutions to marijuana depending on their unique local situations. It also allows policy makers to study the different approaches short of a national legalization.

There are still "dry" counties and cities in the US with regards to alcohol.