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.
It would seem that if the Republicans are for states' rights they would support this amendment as it gives power back to the state. The house bill protects 32 states from federal raids, though only 22 currently have some version of medical marijuana law(s) on their books. Side note: Rand Paul co-authored a similar senate bill that has not yet been voted on.
HR 4660 essentially prohibits the DOJ funding to be used to prevent states from implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
It would seem that if the Republicans are for states' rights they would support this amendment as it gives power back to the state. The house bill protects 32 states from federal raids, though only 22 currently have some version of medical marijuana law(s) on their books. Side note: Rand Paul co-authored a similar senate bill that has not yet been voted on.
HR 4660 essentially prohibits the DOJ funding to be used to prevent states from implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
By the same token, do Democrats believe that states' rights=racism or not? Al Sharpton has stated flatly that it is. In the other thread on Reagan & states' rights, several lib posters agreed that Reagan's support for states' rights was motivated by racism.
Is states' rights w/ respect to MJ racist too? And if not, why is it racist in one case but not the other?
As a Republican, I definitely support states' rights, but it must be consistently applied. If heath care is going to be run out of DC, then regulations of health hazards, whether MJ, cigarettes, tobacco, or fatty foods, also should be run out of DC. If we have states' rights on health care, then I support states' rights on MJ. Otherwise, I don't.
They're for states rights when the issue works in their favor. Otherwise, I don't think they really are.
Republicans are just like Democrats, they want to control everyone else. They only care about states' rights when they aren't getting their way. The only people who authentically care about states' rights, would be Constitutionalists.
But I would say there are fewer Constitutionalists than there are libertarians. And Libertarians don't really give a crap about States' rights either. Except maybe that it would be an improvement over what we have now.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 07-06-2014 at 08:03 PM..
It would seem that if the Republicans are for states' rights they would support this amendment as it gives power back to the state. The house bill protects 32 states from federal raids, though only 22 currently have some version of medical marijuana law(s) on their books. Side note: Rand Paul co-authored a similar senate bill that has not yet been voted on.
HR 4660 essentially prohibits the DOJ funding to be used to prevent states from implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
conservatives are for whatever is going to hurt the groups of people they hate.
In the 1970's and 1980's it was nationalizing the issue of law enforcement even though law enforcement was a state issue, conservatives starting with Nixon and Reagan spent huge federal dollars expanding the federal government's reach into get tough on crime garbage.
If its gay marriage, hey a federal bill, that hurts gay people.
if it's voting only state run because it hurts non whites and poor people,
if it's medical marijuana then it's not states rights, because that will hurt stoners and weed smokers.
if it's setting up a state run exchange for health insurance, then it's not state run because that would hurt the uninsured.
The conservative model for governance is which ever legislative body enables them to hurt people they hate then that's the route they'll take
By the same token, do Democrats believe that states' rights=racism or not? Al Sharpton has stated flatly that it is. In the other thread on Reagan & states' rights, several lib posters agreed that Reagan's support for states' rights was motivated by racism.
In all honesty, I really hate the States' rights = racism argument. Because you could argue that Federal power can be racist as well.
Take for instance immigration. If immigration was done on the state level, we might have a considerable increase in overall immigration. But the fear of the 14th amendment giving immigrants in California citizenship, thereby allowing them to travel to other states, is terrifying to those states who don't want immigrants. Thus the centralization of power in the Federal government can both protect minorities, as well as harm them.
States' rights isn't inherently racist, but can and has been used by racists in the past. In every movement there are racists. And if you looked hard enough, you'll find racists. For that matter, you'll find bigots, and selfish and greedy people, and every other human defect.
What happens in the case of States' rights, is that those people who don't like the idea of states' rights will find the group of scumbags who want to use States' rights for some selfish or evil reason. And they will use that group as the embodiment of all people who support States' rights. It doesn't matter if it is fair or not.
I mean, all you have to do is look at videos on youtube of "Obama supporters" or something. Some guy will go into a crowd of thousands of people and find like the two biggest idiots, and will present them as if they represent all Obama supporters.
And if that is all you see, and if you have a reason to believe it. Then you will.
conservatives are for whatever is going to hurt the groups of people they hate.
In the 1970's and 1980's it was nationalizing the issue of law enforcement even though law enforcement was a state issue, conservatives starting with Nixon and Reagan spent huge federal dollars expanding the federal government's reach into get tough on crime garbage.
If its gay marriage, hey a federal bill, that hurts gay people.
if it's voting only state run because it hurts non whites and poor people,
if it's medical marijuana then it's not states rights, because that will hurt stoners and weed smokers.
if it's setting up a state run exchange for health insurance, then it's not state run because that would hurt the uninsured.
The conservative model for governance is which ever legislative body enables them to hurt people they hate then that's the route they'll take
Conservatives, by definition, are in favor of less government whether they hate people or not.
Conservative constitutionalists, like myself, are in favor of freedom that does not impose on me the penalty for someone else's poor judgement.
If you want to smoke pot, I say fine, but you should not be eligible for welfare, disability or unemployment benefits of any kind.
After all, anyone who, after weighing the pros and cons of drug use, has decided to smoke marijuana has demonstrated the decision making ability of someone far too stupid to make such an important decision.
Last edited by momonkey; 07-06-2014 at 11:45 PM..
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.
