California the next state to jump on the state's rights bandwagon? (interstate, illegal)
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.
Wow, way to go California! You would think true small goverment conservatives would be the biggest advocates of marijuana legalization considering the disaster that prohibition has been. I really hope this passes. It is time for this country to wake up and realize that the war on drugs needs to stop. A war against a country's own citizens is always a bad idea.
California voters will decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana use for adults, after the secretary of state on Wednesday certified the initiative for the November ballot.
It would become the first state to legalize recreational marijuana if the proposition is approved. Marijuana use is legal for medicinal purposes in California and 14 other states, but the drug is illegal under federal law.
Wow, way to go California! You would think true small goverment conservatives would be the biggest advocates of marijuana legalization considering the disaster that prohibition has been. I really hope this passes. It is time for this country to wake up and realize that the war on drugs needs to stop. A war against a country's own citizens is always a bad idea.
The California law legalizing pot is symbolic only. Until the federal government legalizes pot, its still illegal. Obama did say that the federal government will no longer prosecute small time users, but that doesnt change the law and make it legal.
The response in polls is that California is so much in debt that the state can not afford to not allow marijuana so that it can be taxed. Nobody seems to be against legalizing. This is easily pass.
The federal government stopped interfering with California law after Obama became president. Today there are over 1000 marijuana dispensaries just in Los Angeles. The people of California have already legalized marijuana in essence.
The California law legalizing pot is symbolic only. Until the federal government legalizes pot, its still illegal. Obama did say that the federal government will no longer prosecute small time users, but that doesnt change the law and make it legal.
It's the same as the 10th amendment/firearms freedom laws passed by several states. The feds have no business regulating intrastate commerce, etc.
You would think true small goverment conservatives would be the biggest advocates of marijuana legalization considering the disaster that prohibition has been.
They probably are the biggest advocates. The problem is that they're a small minority in today's Republican Party. Their numbers aren't large enough to wield much influence.
If you're looking for social libertarianism, you're a lot more likely to find it among Democrats than Republicans.
They probably are the biggest advocates. The problem is that they're a small minority in today's Republican Party. Their numbers aren't large enough to wield much influence.
If you're looking for social libertarianism, you're a lot more likely to find it among Democrats than Republicans.
It's the same as the 10th amendment/firearms freedom laws passed by several states. The feds have no business regulating intrastate commerce, etc.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the federal government has authority to regulate marijuana and its use. The justification was that even though pot could be grown and used on a personal level, the chance that it could find its way for public consumption was far to great and it was unreasonable to assume it couldnt/wouldnt find its way across a state line.
Dont remember the case law, I'll see if I can find it but it goes back to a case involving an Ohio farmer and wheat growth, even if for personal consumption.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the federal government has authority to regulate marijuana and its use. The justification was that even though pot could be grown and used on a personal level, the chance that it could find its way for public consumption.
They also found a person growing wheat in their backyard could be forbidden from doing so because it "affects" interstate commerce. Which is flat out absurd (but hey, the court also declared tomatoes are a vegetable, when it's a fruit). That was after FDR packed the court. The court today may be very inclined to overturning that. Though more likely with the gun cases than a drug case. The 10th Amendment works sometimes in ways some may not find good but you can't make exceptions to it because you dislike something.
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.
