Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except that the US Supreme Court has ruled that growing a crom for sale ANYWHERE, even across the street, is intersate commerce because it can affect the prices in another state. Stupid, I know, but that's how they have ruled and if I've learned anything from liberals over the years it is that all federal judge are all-knowing and all-powerful so we must obey every word they say.
Can you show me that precedent? I've never heard of that one. When it travels on federal highways, or crosses the state line, yes. But if its local roads, or state highways, that makes a difference I believe.
Its not like the DEA is going to go after California though, as I said, they've been instructed not to.
Except that the US Supreme Court has ruled that growing a crom for sale ANYWHERE, even across the street, is intersate commerce because it can affect the prices in another state. Stupid, I know, but that's how they have ruled and if I've learned anything from liberals over the years it is that all federal judge are all-knowing and all-powerful so we must obey every word they say.
Until another Supreme Court over rules the previous decision. Or, If you believe in civil disobedience (which us 1960's Hippies do) you can just do your own thing until the rest of society catches up. Meanwhle you youngsters can do the "I obey" thing.
Don't use logic and Supreme Court in the same sentence as commerce
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Can you show me that precedent? I've never heard of that one. When it travels on federal highways, or crosses the state line, yes. But if its local roads, or state highways, that makes a difference I believe.
Its not like the DEA is going to go after California though, as I said, they've been instructed not to.
You're wrong on the local roads and highway idea (stop using rational thought will you). You can read all about it Google Supreme Court & marijuana and maybe commerce. That should do it.
The DEA (under the current Acting Drug Czar) still goes after people in CA and CO who are complying with state law on medical marijuana. There are many examples featured on pro medical marijuana sites. Guess they didn't read the memo.
The cannabis that was around a hundred years ago was much lower in potency than the gene-engineered high potencey strains of today. It was also never in widespread usage. Legalization today would probably see usage along the same levels as drinking alcohol.
Hey, I never said it would be easy. You are right though that we need to work on deporting the illegal aliens first. As for the Bill of Rights, liberals have been telling us for decades that the Constitution only means whatever a judge says it means. They bend it any way they want to accomplish their ends. Deportation is hardly a 'cruel and unusual punishment'. In fact, there are probably a lot of people sitting in federal prisons right now that would choose that option over their 10+ year sentences.
Ah! I knew it! A 60's hippie.
By the way, when you refer to 'my generation' do you even know which generation that is? I'm part of the Reagan Generation, which came of age in the 1980's - sandwiched in between the accursed Baby Boomers and the derisively named Generation X.
You know, a lot of prohibitionists say that the cannabis then was not as potent as now, but the reality has two aspects 1) If it's more potent you tend to use less, so potency is not the issue prohibitionists like to try and make it. 2) It is very hard to control potency. Two plants grown under identical conditions can have different potency, and no one knows why. It's fair to assume that potency has varied over time, but increases in inpotency are partly luck and partly selective breeding (which as a technique has been around for centuries), not some fancy and expensive gene splicing.
Use of marijuana has been found as far back as 3,000 BC and across all of Asia, Europe and the Americas. It is a weed after all. It grows thoughout the US (it's called ditch weed and has a very low THC level). To me that is widespread.
The idea that legalization would result in wider use has been exploded many times, although prohibitionists like to bring it up because it SOUNDS plausable. Here is an example: Several states have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana for personal use. You would think that would create an increase in use. Hasn't happened. In fact, during the period when the most states decriminalized it, use actually went down. So there is no basis for your conclusion that marijuana usage would match alcohol usage if it were legal. In fact, I bet you didn't know that alcohol usage went down after it was relegalized from prohibition.
There is no need to ask me disparagingly if I know what generation I come from. I had finished college and gotten married before you learned how to use a bathroom. Let's stick to the topic.
You're wrong on the local roads and highway idea (stop using rational thought will you). You can read all about it Google Supreme Court & marijuana and maybe commerce. That should do it.
The DEA (under the current Acting Drug Czar) still goes after people in CA and CO who are complying with state law on medical marijuana. There are many examples featured on pro medical marijuana sites. Guess they didn't read the memo.
As soon as December roles around, this will quietly go away. They'll have some high profile busts probably, but most will go unpunished. I am curious as how federal officials plan on enforcing such a large group, without increasing the size of the DEA considerably. Personally, as I said, I think the above link was all about politics and the election. They'll quietly let it slip through the cracks until the jury is in on legalization.
All I ask my fellow citizens in California, you are getting a wonderful gift from your state, be nice, and don't screw it up for the rest of us. Set a good example.
Can you show me that precedent? I've never heard of that one. When it travels on federal highways, or crosses the state line, yes. But if its local roads, or state highways, that makes a difference I believe.
I knew nothing of the commerce clause and how it has been abused before I read "Men In Black" by Mark Levin. It is about different US Supreme Court cases and I believe it was mentioned in there. It was shocking how badly they have abused that clause over the years.
I knew nothing of the commerce clause and how it has been abused before I read "Men In Black" by Mark Levin. It is about different US Supreme Court cases and I believe it was mentioned in there. It was shocking how badly they have abused that clause over the years.
The federal government has been raping the constitution with a general view of the wording since 1861.
I'm for strict constitutionality, but that will never happen, neither party in power will let that happen.
Can you show me that precedent? I've never heard of that one.
Found it.
An excellent example is the Wickard v. Filburn Supreme Court ruling of 1942.
This U.S. Supreme Court case revolved around a farmer (Filburn) who planted 23 acres of wheat in contravention to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (imposed by the Federal government in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression), which allotted him only 11.1 acres. As a result, Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it. Rather than destroy his crops and pay the fine, Filburn brought his case before the Federal District Court, and though the court ruled in his favor, the federal government appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
So how did the U.S. Supreme Court rule in Wickard v. Filburn?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was constitutional (based upon the Commerce Clause) and that the federal government was therefore operating within the scope of the U.S. Constitution in ordering Filburn to destroy his crops and pay.
And what was the U.S. Supreme Court's rationale for this ruling?
The U.S. Supreme Court argued that had Filburn's actions constituted "interstate commerce" on the basis that had Filburn not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market, and that the actions of thousands of farmers doing what Filburn had done would have had a significant effect on wheat prices throughout the nation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
until...
