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.
Actually no, there are or should be limits on the feds
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaddog
It should be the same, Federal law should override any State law and after Nov. 2 we will see if the Feds step in, my guess is that they will.
I fully expect, as you do, that the feds will intervene with a lawsuit in CA if prop 19 passes. However, I'm hoping they do because there are constitutional issues at stake in this fight that were not present in Az. including using the Interstate Commerce powers of the feds to justify federal regulation of marijuana, which should be revisited. Unfortunately the last time around the Supreme Court sided with the feds in the most convoluted arguement possible to say that the feds were right because if you are not involved in interstate commerce (of marijuana) then you are affecting the interstate commerce (of marijuana) and so interstate commerce still applies even if all your activity is in one state and even if you are not selling it.
Federal law does not trump state law if it is unconstitutional. Let's see if the current Supreme Court can understand that, because I don't think the previous court got that, regarding that decision and I'm sure if prop 19 passes that is where this issue is headed.
This is the problem with the current generation, they think everything started when they opened their eyes. For your information marijuana (then called cannabis) was in common use as a medicine before it was outlawed. That fits your definition of prohibition. It's prohibition that causes all the ills you mentioned, violence, gang involvement, etc.
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.
Quote:
We can't even seem to deport illegal aliens and you want to strip people of their citizenship and ship them off to some compound, for using an illegal intoxicant, something we don't do to any other "criminal". If you were really a constitutinal conservative you'd respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, somethings you've seemed to have forgotten in your zeal to rid the nation of illegal drug users.
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.
Quote:
We, the generation of the 1960's, at least had and still have, the guts to question authority, your generation marches in lock step to whatever the federal government dictates. When we die off there won't be a United States of America, at least that the founding fathers would recognize, if your group is in charge.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaconowner
I fully expect, as you do, that the feds will intervene with a lawsuit in CA if prop 19 passes. However, I'm hoping they do because there are constitutional issues at stake in this fight that were not present in Az. including using the Interstate Commerce powers of the feds to justify federal regulation of marijuana, which should be revisited. Unfortunately the last time around the Supreme Court sided with the feds in the most convoluted arguement possible to say that the feds were right because if you are not involved in interstate commerce (of marijuana) then you are affecting the interstate commerce (of marijuana) and so interstate commerce still applies even if all your activity is in one state and even if you are not selling it.
Gag. I have to agree with you on the commerce clause issue. The Supreme Court has used that as a magic wand to deny state's rights whenever they want to. States are supposed to pass their own laws and be laboratories to test new ideas. If an idea is good it will eb adopted by other states. If it is bad, then the damage is limited to only one state. Everyone should Read Mark Levin's "Men In Black" to learn all about the court's abuses of the commerce clause.
Prohibition was attempting to eliminate something that was in common usage already. That is a far harder task than keeping something illegal.
Do we really want a nation of addicts? Don’t think that gangs and crime would go away if we legalized some drugs. They would just market other drugs. So what would be the answer then—legalize all drugs? Then they would just switch to purveying another vice. Prostitution? Child sex slaves? It would not end. Legalization and surrender are not the path to take.
You actually think marijuana was not in common usage
before it's prohibition?
From a physical standpoint, marijuana is only addictive in cases of heavy use. Even then, the physical withdrawal symptoms are more due to psychological factors than by a physical withdrawal.
Kinda like: Can you eat only one potato chip
You bet a lot of gangs and crime would go away if it's
prohibition was lifted, not to mention saving money
for tax payers - no need for the Air National Guard
flying over pot farms, ridiculously wasting their time
pulling plants out of the ground.
Prostitution, if done by consenting adults should be
legal. Child slavery is just that - something done
against one's will.
To compare marijuana usage to sexual/deviant acts
is really just a poor excuse for an argument.
Similar to if you masturbate, you'll go blind
No one wants to surrender anything - just give back
the right of someone to grow a plant from nature
in his own backyard, and either marvel in its beauty
or smoke it, or toss it on their salad, if they CHOOSE
You actually think marijuana was not in common usage
before it's prohibition?
I really don't have stats on it and I doubt accurate records were kept. I know it would be a lot more common today if it becamse legal because whole industies would form around it on a scale that didn't exist 100 years ago.
Quote:
From a physical standpoint, marijuana is only addictive in cases of heavy use. Even then, the physical withdrawal symptoms are more due to psychological factors than by a physical withdrawal.
Kinda like: Can you eat only one potato chip
Its funny you mention the potato chips. Many of the same people that are in favor of legalizing pot are crusading for a ban on trans-fats like you find in potato chips.
Quote:
You bet a lot of gangs and crime would go away if it's
prohibition was lifted, not to mention saving money
for tax payers - no need for the Air National Guard
flying over pot farms, ridiculously wasting their time
pulling plants out of the ground.
I don't think criminal organizations can be put out of business so easily. I think the will just shift to a new product to sell.
Quote:
No one wants to surrender anything - just give back
the right of someone to grow a plant from nature
in his own backyard, and either marvel in its beauty
or smoke it, or toss it on their salad, if they CHOOSE
Not the government's right to choose for us
That argument is seductive and tempting, especially to a conservative Federalist. However, it is easy to say the same about cocaine, heroin, and meth labs. Pot has reached a certain level of acceptance in this country and many feel that if we give in and legalize it then in a generation there will be groups pushing for crack or meth or ice, or whatever the designer drug of the day is, to be legalized as well. As a side note, alcohol is legal but you can't make it in your own backyard legally.
I really don't have stats on it and I doubt accurate records were kept. I know it would be a lot more common today if it becamse legal because whole industies would form around it on a scale that didn't exist 100 years ago.
Its funny you mention the potato chips. Many of the same people that are in favor of legalizing pot are crusading for a ban on trans-fats like you find in potato chips.
I don't think criminal organizations can be put out of business so easily. I think the will just shift to a new product to sell.
However, it is easy to say the same about cocaine, heroin, and meth labs. Pot has reached a certain level of acceptance in this country and many feel that if we give in and legalize it then in a generation there will be groups pushing for crack or meth or ice, or whatever the designer drug of the day is, to be legalized as well. As a side note, alcohol is legal but you can't make it in your own backyard legally.
No - Heroin is highly addictive and though it is derived from a plant, it takes a lab to produce the heroin. Same can be said for a Meth lab - not to mention the fire hazard.
Pot has had acceptance since George Washington. Our soldiers smoked it quite a bit during the Mexican War
I don't know that many people that are aspiring to be a junkie (heroin). While meth is a huge problem - I don't
ever see that drug being considered legalized.
You actually are allowed to make your own wine. I think
the ban on harder liquor is it's fire hazard as well - not
to mention poisoning
Marijuana should not even be put in the same category as the other drugs you mentioned. It is a myth that it leads
to harder drugs. More often than not, someone who starts
off drinking beer, may end up a whiskeyholic more often than a hop from marijuana to heroin.
No - Heroin is highly addictive and though it is derived from a plant, it takes a lab to produce the heroin.
...
I don't know that many people that are aspiring to be a junkie (heroin). While meth is a huge problem - I don't
ever see that drug being considered legalized.
I hope you are right but couldn't someone make the same arguments you are making for pot in favor of heroin legalization? Personal freedom, own backyard, etc.
Quote:
You actually are allowed to make your own wine. I think
the ban on harder liquor is it's fire hazard as well - not
to mention poisoning
Yeah, I think you are right on wine. I was thinking of hillbillies and moonshine. Backyard stills are illegal.
Quote:
Marijuana should not even be put in the same category as the other drugs you mentioned. It is a myth that it leads
to harder drugs. More often than not, someone who starts
off drinking beer, may end up a whiskeyholic more often than a hop from marijuana to heroin.
Well, I know its antidotal but on episodes of “Cops” often when they bust someone for pot they have other drugs with them as well (usually crack since it is cheap).
When an AZ law goes into effect, which they say violates federal law, everyone flips out.
When CA is on the verge of passing a law legalizing personal use of marijuana, clearly in violation of federal drug laws ............... its alright?
If i'm over simplifying things, i apologize - I'm just a little confused.
I can show you the constitutional law that grants immigration power to the federal government. Can you show me the one that specifically shows that the federal government has the right to make any substance illegal without a constitutional amendment?
There isn't one.
As long as California's marijuana isn't sold across borders, which would be interstate commerce, the federal government has no constitutional right to tell California what to do.
And the current administration already instructed the DEA not to prosecute against state law, for medical needs. I'm sure that will, if it hasn't already, be extended to states where it is legalized.
As long as California's marijuana isn't sold across borders, which would be interstate commerce, the federal government has no constitutional right to tell California what to do.
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.
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.
Actually no, there are or should be limits on the feds
