Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-09-2011, 07:30 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,744,889 times
Reputation: 9325

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
While I may not like the cost, the federal government does have the constitutional authority to wage a "war on drugs" if it crosses state or international borders. Where Congress' authority ceases is with any product that is wholly grown, processed, sold, and used within a given state. In such cases, it is entirely up to the state to decide how to deal with the situation, the feds have no say.

Under what part of the constitution do you give the feds this authority (war on drugs)?

Where do they get the authority to tell us what we can eat, drink or smoke?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2011, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,744,889 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Then there is no dispute, Congress has the constitutional authority to wage a "war on drugs", at least in regards to international and interstate commerce.
.

No, not true at all. Regulating commerce does not include banning products. It does not include a war on drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 07:42 PM
 
Location: state of enlightenment
2,403 posts, read 5,241,755 times
Reputation: 2500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
His Majestic Excellency God-on-Earth Doctor Carl Sagan was successful?

This is a man who literally stood on top of Jimmy Carter's desk in the Oval Office and screamed that we were going into an Ice Age and glaciers would be rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue by the year 2000 if Carter didn't do something about it.

Carter didn't do squat and I don't see an glaciers knocking down Washington's Monument.

You call that successful? The guy was a loser.
Among other things he published more than 600 scientific papers and popular articles and was author, co-author, or editor of more than 20 books. He had degrees in physics, astrophysics and astronomy. He lectured and did research at Harvard University until 1968. He became a full Professor at Cornell in 1971. He worked on the Mariner probes to Venus and correctly predicted a hot, dry surface when others were expecting a tropical paradise. He was among the first to accurately hypothesize that Saturn's moon Titan might possess oceans of liquid hydrocarbon compounds and that Jupiter's moon Europa might possess subsurface oceans of water.


You?


He seemed undecided between greenhouse and ice age:
YouTube - Carl Sagan Cosmos Episode 4 Ice Age
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,455,656 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Under what part of the constitution do you give the feds this authority (war on drugs)?

Where do they get the authority to tell us what we can eat, drink or smoke?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, a.k.a. the "Commerce Clause."

If a product crosses national or state borders, Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 08:08 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,455,656 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
No, not true at all. Regulating commerce does not include banning products. It does not include a war on drugs.
Of course it does. Regulating commerce covers the entire gambit from tariffs to limiting imports, including a complete ban. Regulating commerce means Congress is in control, they can do whatever they please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 08:11 PM
 
22,661 posts, read 24,605,343 times
Reputation: 20339
It is like many other substances, there is a potential for addiction which can cause many problems in your life. If you can use it without getting addicted and/or it causing problems in your life.....I don't see a problem with occasional use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,744,889 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, a.k.a. the "Commerce Clause."

If a product crosses national or state borders, Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate it.

Regulate, yes. Prohibit, no.

And even if you expand that clause to allow the feds to prohibit, they could only do so if it was commerce between the states.

There is no authority for the war on drugs which goes way beyond interstate commerce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,744,889 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Of course it does. Regulating commerce covers the entire gambit from tariffs to limiting imports, including a complete ban. Regulating commerce means Congress is in control, they can do whatever they please.

There was never any intent to BAN commerce. Regulate, yes.

And if so, there is NO authority to ban interstate commerce.

The war on drugs is totally illegal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,455,656 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by tickyul View Post
It is like many other substances, there is a potential for addiction which can cause many problems in your life. If you can use it without getting addicted and/or it causing problems in your life.....I don't see a problem with occasional use.
Except that marijuana is not physically addicting. It can be physiologically addicting (in other words, you may THINK you need it) but there is no physical addiction to THC.

In either case, it does not have to be addicting to be bad for you. It is common sense that anything other than air inhaled into your lungs cannot be good for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2011, 08:20 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,324,078 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Regulate, yes. Prohibit, no.

And even if you expand that clause to allow the feds to prohibit, they could only do so if it was commerce between the states.

There is no authority for the war on drugs which goes way beyond interstate commerce.
Pot prohibition increases alcoholic commerce.

The Constitution has no intrastate commerce clause.

The feds owe a lot of reparations in this war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:26 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top