Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles
Title: As Marijuana Prohibition Winds Down, What Will Control Freaks Ban Next?
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/ ... rijuana-prohibition-winds-down
Published: Sep 13, 2016
Author: J.D. Tuccille
Post Date: 2016-09-13 20:08:30 by Hondo68
Keywords: end the WOD, intrusive, powers and dangerous toys, the New Deal regulatory state
Views: 13270
Comments: 67
Marijuana "does not meet the criteria for currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, there is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision, and it has a high potential for abuse," the Drug Enforcement Administration sniffed in an August public announcement refusing to consider easing restrictions on the stuff. The announcement seemed to deliberately miss the point since a majority of Americans favor legalizing marijuana for fun, not just medicine. That the feds are fighting a rear-guard action on the issue is apparent from the fact that half the states in the country are currently ignoring D.C. on the issue, legalizing the sale and use of marijuana for recreation or sometimes broadly defined medicinal purposes. Arizona and California, at least, look poised to further loosen the law in November, with others to follow. But as marijuana prohibition falls, the drug cops have a backup plan. Just weeks after the marijuana announcement, the federal regulator of stuff that makes us feel good "announced its intention to place the active materials in the kratom plant into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act in order to avoid an imminent hazard to public safety." The original sin of the Southeast Asia-sourced plant is "its ability to produce opioid-like effects and [that it] is often marketed as a legal alternative to controlled substances." Which makes the stuff a potentially handy reefer madness substitute if you need a new drug to stand in for a relegalizing old one as you try to justify the continued funding of an expensive and potent federal agency. After all, that agency is staffed by well-paid employees who've come to enjoy using the intrusive powers and dangerous toys they've been given to satisfy the whims of the moral scolds in our midst. We've been down this path before. As Prohibition, America's first national effort to penalize people for taking pleasure in imbibing psychoactive substances, became increasingly unpopular and widely flouted at the end of the 1920s, an assistant commissioner for the United States Bureau of Prohibition cooked up a successor project. Harry Anslinger left his old gig and took on the role of commissioner of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics—a predecessor agency to the DEA—and helped launch the national crusade against marijuana. It was a newly demonized intoxicant to give purpose to the power and personnel that had been assembled for the faltering crusade against booze. "This propitious marriage of state power and moral suasion would yield a dramatic expansion of federal policing and an increase of state and local policing in the quasi-military sphere of crime control," Harvard historian Lisa McGirr writes in her 2015 book, The War on Alcohol: Prohibition and the Rise of the American State. "The war on alcohol and the war on drugs were symbiotic campaigns," McGirr told Reason in an interview. "Those two campaigns emerged together, [and] they had the same shared...logic. Many of the same individuals were involved in both campaigns." McGirr sees the "federal penal state" of intrusive policing and mass incarceration that arose during Prohibition as the result of the combined efforts of old-time religious scolds who disapproved of alcohol use and Progressives who were eager to use state power to address what they saw as social ills. Together they nationalized what had traditionally been an individual, local, or state concern, gave the government unprecedented power to regulate people's lives, and escalated their efforts as people refused to submit. But even as it was a consequence of growing state power, Prohibition also helped to normalize the idea that the federal government could and should boss us around. "Faced with the unintended consequences of Prohibition, many men and women began to rethink their commitments to the war on alcohol, but they did not altogether reject the state's right to police and punish the use of other recreational narcotics," McGirr adds in her book. People also grew accustomed to an activist and intrusive state overall, paving the way for the New Deal and the regulatory state of today. A massive government apparatus, once created, can be used for any purpose its masters desire. "War is the health of the state," Randolph Bourne famously noted. But war doesn't necessarily require ships and planes launched against other nations; it can be waged against a government's own people by police who are empowered by the law to see enemies behind every door. Then as now, the law was unevenly enforced. If you were a New York socialite during Prohibition, you could continue to drink illicit booze at parties or in speakeasies in relative safety since you weren't considered part of a "problem" population and could push back against authorities—urban ethnics were deliberately targeted for harsher treatment when they broke the law, as were rural blacks. Likewise, Malia Obama was at little risk of more than a parental tongue-lashing when she was caught smoking a joint last month while young people—African-Americans, in particular--whose fathers don't reside in the White House often suffer nastier consequences in the absence of helpful political connections. Even for booze, the double standard for enforcement remains. While mayor of New York City, national nanny Michael Bloomberg ceaselessly sought to mold and scold his own suffering subjects as he broke the law himself to quaff wine in public. "They were behaving," he said of his friends who were given a pass by police. He's not one of those people, you know, and so he and his buddies shouldn't have to obey rules meant to rein in "problem" groups. So the desire to control remains in place, nurtured by policy-makers and their supporters who never intend themselves to be the target of enforcement. That desire remains even as public pushback causes yet another prohibition to stumble and fall. Prohibition has its own logic—of control and power—that has very little to do with the specific prohibition at any given moment. Those who would mold the world to suit their vision see no reason to back off their efforts, they've created a vast bureaucracy of enforcers who make their living pushing us around, and they've accustomed us to a state that pokes and prods us at every turn. So celebrate the relegalization of marijuana for sure. Just don't convince yourself that it means we've seen the end of prohibition, or of the abuses that intrusive government brings. The next big prohibition might be kratom, or another drug, or a grab-bag of substances and activities of which our rulers disapprove. What is banned matters less than the fact of the ban and the apparatus that keeps the ban in place. Winning doesn't mean ending a prohibition, it means disempowering the prohibitionists. It isn’t enough to end just one restrictive law, we have to disempower the prohibitionists.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-26) not displayed.
.
.
.
#27. To: Ferret Mike (#22)
The State is not required to enforce Federal law. They cannot convert something that is a Federal crime into lawful activity. Had your employer decided to fire you for testing THC positive, you're screwed. See Brandon Coats v DISH Network, LLC In Colorado, he was fired for having a positive drug test. In a proceeding on a motion to dismiss his case for failure to state a claim, the district court in Colorado stated: CONCLUSION Because the Court finds that use of marijuana, even where such use is in full compliance with Colorado‟s Medical Marijuana Amendment, is not a lawful activity, Plaintiff‟s Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) for failure to state a claim. Upheld on appeal. A Federal amendment to the 2016 budget currently withholds funding for Federal prosecutions of medical marijuana prosecutions. That law expires in two weeks. If the withholding is not renewed, or funding is provided, prosecutions could commence for violations going back to anything within the statute of limitations. You may be denied the right to possess any firearm of ammunition. See S. Rowan Wilson v Eric Holder, U.S. District Court, Nevada (2014). The ATF stated that "if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have 'reasonable cause to believe' that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance," meaning "you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person." In Wilson, the 9th Circuit stated that, "in Dugan, we held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms, id.. at 999-1000, in the same way that it does not protect the rights of 'felons and the mentally ill,' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27." In light of the existing holding in Dugan, that violating Federal marijuana law by possessession/use made one ineligible to possess firearms, Ms. Wilson argued on appeal that she obtained a Medical Marijuana Card but did not use it. The question in Wilson became whether mere possession of a Medical Marijuana Card was sufficient to make one ineligible to possess firearms. The court said that it was. At page 2 of the slip op.: Furthermore, the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (“Gun Control Act”) prohibits “any person . . . who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance . . . [to] possess . . . any firearm or ammunition . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Additionally, § 922(d)(3) prohibits any person from selling or otherwise disposing of “any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person . . . is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3). You can make believe all you want, but if the Feds find you worth prosecuting, State law is no defense.
A State constitution trumps federal legislation, especially unconstitutional federal legislation. It's a steaming pile of congressional federal crap, NOT law. They'll have to pry my Korean Ginseng, from my cold dead hands! If it in any way conflicts with U.S. law, that part is null and void. Wake up. Federal law is supreme over all State law.
You are full of shit.
You take the action of drinking booze or smoking pot, the consequence is that you get in an accident and the rest of us pay for your care and rehabilitation the rest of your life.
750,000 arrests of people taking marijuana home. What are the odds.
"How do they get it home?" 750,000 arrests of people taking marijuana home. Beat that straw man. I never said people CURRENTLY ARE only using it at home, but that if it's legal there, that's where they'll use it. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The accident is the (rare relative to the number of times booze or pot are used) consequence; us paying is the consequence of voting for Dums and RINOs. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The key words are "in Pursuance thereof" Article 6: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land… === In Federalist No. 33 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton [who was a supporter of making Federal Government stronger!] says: …But it will not follow …that acts of the large society [the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [the States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such… [T]he clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union … EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION … [capitals are Hamilton’s]
You take the action of driving your car, the consequence is that you get in an accident and the rest of us pay for your care and rehabilitation the rest of your life. You take the action of jaywalking, the consequence is that you get in an accident and the rest of us pay for your care and rehabilitation the rest of your life. You take the action of masturbating excessively, the consequence is that you go crazy, you dirty little boy, and the rest of us pay for your care and rehabilitation the rest of your life. Yada, yada, misterwhite moralizing.
…But it will not follow …that acts of the large society [the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [the States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such… [T]he clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union … EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION … [capitals are Hamilton’s] Perfect rebuttal... Bookmarked for the next time nolu sham tries to subvert the words of our Constitution. ( which is becoming a daily occurrence)
Why are you telling me who's to blame? I didn't ask. I said WE are paying for the reckless behavior of others. I have zero interest in paying more tax dollars to fund the consequences of legalizing yet another recreational drug. In your little Libertarian fantasy world, legalizing all drugs looks real good ... on paper. It falls apart in the real world. Once people start taking personal responsibility for their actions -- as they did back when drugs used to be legal -- then we can BEGIN discussing legalization.
Drug laws ARE pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. So says Congress, the President, and the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). That's my side of the argument. But you're saying I'm wrong. Please present your side of the argument without using the phrase, "Because I said so".
By using what for logic? If there was ever an incentive to use a drug at home it would be the fact that it's illegal to use it in public. Yet there are 750,000 arrests every year of people who choose to smoke in public. Now you come along and tell me that behavior will stop if we legalize it?
"The power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes", means that Federal laws can ban import/export of marijuana between the states, with other countries and buying it from Indian tribes (or selling to them). If citizens of a given state grow, trade and consume only within their own state, this power does not apply.
"... the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity." This is born out by fact. Nebraska and Oklahoma are currently suing Colorado over marijuana legalization because Colorado's marijuana is crossing into their states -- contrary to your claim that such a thing wouldn't happen.
The Court was wrong. "Undercutting" my a**. Constitution is clear. Anything can be banned that way.
The FAA is authorized to regulate and control all flights -- interstate and intrastate. Why? Because the failure to regulate intrastate flights would undercut the regulation of the interstate flights. Makes perfect sense to everyone ... except you. You think that a half-dozen mid-air collisions are the price we have to pay for interpreting the constitution that way YOU think it should be.
Why are you telling me who's to blame? I'm simply discussing the topic you raised: consequences. We are paying for the reckless behavior of our elected legislators. I have zero interest in paying tax dollars to fund a futile and criminal-enriching ban on a recreational drug. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. And still greater incentive if it's illegal to use it in public but legal at home. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. I call bullshit. They were arrested for possession - which can be detected in the course of a reasonable-suspicion pat-down with no public smoking involved. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. The key is that if a court has not struck down the law as unconstitutional, they just slam your ass in prison and let you enjoy your long tantrum with your cellmate Bubba. A proclamation by a wingnut on the internet doesn't cut.
They had it outside the home. You're trying to tell me they'd keep it inside the home. So your argument is without merit. Just as those arguing that the legalization decision should be up to each state since the marijuana will stay in that state. They're full of it as well.
You have yet to tell me anything I already did not know. You must be mistaking my absolute disregard for concern as ignorance of the legal paradigm of canabis. This is not so. I know well that there is no true justifiable reason for these laws. And the weight of that truth will eventually be the death of anti cannabis law. I am a political activist, not a lawyer. Pffft! Legal or illegal, if you're smoking at home the odds are infinitesimal that you'd be caught. People are not being busted in their homes for personal use.
Where did I say or imply that? Why should you or I care if they're walking down the street with a bag of weed or a pint of booze in their jacket pocket? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Bulshit. It is not in the Constitution States may accept or they may not. They should and they did. Interstate means state. Case closed.
Yes they can. It does not make it true or right.
As long as you know the legal risk you take, you may choose to violate the law. Many people drive down the interstate at 80 MPH. If a trooper decides to ticket you, that's the risk you take. I doubt legal recreational marijuana use is in the near future. A major problem is in the workplace. As the state have proven themselves unable or unwilling to regulate marijuana as medicine in a responsible manner, it is also unlikely that medical marijuana will be declared to be legal either. In any case, it cannot pass the required tests in plant form. Derivatives without the stuff that gets you high will be developed and marketed.
Yes they can. It does not make it true or right. And you can explain that to your cellmate Bubba. A law is not unconstitutional because you say it is. Under law, it is considered constitutional until a court of competent jurisdiction says it is not.
Makes perfect sense to everyone ... except you. You think that a half-dozen mid-air collisions are the price we have to pay for interpreting the constitution that way YOU think it should be. Touchdown, white team. The Feds exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the airspace and can even prevent a state or municipality from regulating the noise a plane may make landing or taking off at night. [footnotes omitted] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/624/case.html City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973) City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. No. 71-1637 Argued February 20, 1973 Decided May 14, 1973 411 U.S. 624 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Appellees sought an injunction against enforcement of a Burbank city ordinance placing an 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew on jet flights from the Hollywood-Burbank Airport. The District Court found the ordinance unconstitutional on Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause grounds, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis of the Supremacy Clause, with respect to both preemption and conflict. Held: In light of the pervasive nature of the scheme of federal regulation of aircraft noise, as reaffirmed and reinforced by the Noise Control Act of 1972, the Federal Aviation Administration, now in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, has full control over aircraft noise, preempting state and local control. Pp. 411 U. S. 626-640. 457 F.2d 667, affirmed. DOUGLAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, and POWELL, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEWART, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 411 U. S. 640. 411 U. S. 625 MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court, in Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 12 How. 299, first stated the rule of preemption which is the critical issue in the present case. Speaking through Mr. Justice Curtis, it said: ". . . Whatever subjects of this power are in their nature national, or admit only of one uniform system or plan of regulation, may justly be said to be of such a nature as to require exclusive legislation by Congress." Id. at 31. This suit, brought by appellees, asked for an injunction against the enforcement of an ordinance adopted by the City Council of Burbank, California, which made it unlawful for a so-called pure jet aircraft to take off from the Hollywood-Burbank Airport between 11 p.m. of one day and 7 a.m. the next day, and making it unlawful for the operator of that airport to allow any such aircraft to take off from that airport during such periods. The only regularly scheduled flight affected by the ordinance was an intrastate flight of Pacific Southwest Airlines originating in Oakland, California and departing from Hollywood-Burbank Airport for San Diego every Sunday night at 11:30. The District Court found the ordinance to be unconstitutional on both Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause grounds. 318 F.Supp. 914. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the grounds of the Supremacy Clause both as respects preemption and as respects conflict. 457 F.2d 667. The case is here on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2). We noted probable Jurisdiction. 409 U.S. 840. We affirm the Court of Appeals. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 731, 49 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., as amended by the Noise Control Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 1234, and the regulations under it, 14 CFR pts. 71, 73, 75, 77, 91, 93, 95, 97, are central to the question of preemption. Section 1108(a) of the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1508(a), provides in part, By §§ 307(a), (c) of the Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 1348(a), (c), the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been given broad authority to regulate the use of the navigable airspace "in order to insure the safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace . . ." and "for the protection of persons and property on the ground. . . ." The Solicitor General, though arguing against preemption, concedes that, as respects "airspace management," there is preemption. That, however, is a fatal concession, for, as the District Court found: It also found "[t]he imposition of curfew ordinances on a nationwide basis would cause a serious loss of efficiency in the use of the navigable airspace." Curfews such as Burbank has imposed would, according to the testimony at the trial and the District Court's findings, increase congestion, cause a loss of efficiency, and aggravate the noise problem. FAA has occasionally enforced curfews. See Virginians for Dulles v. Volpe, 344 F.Supp. 573. But the record shows that FAA has consistently opposed curfews, unless managed by it, in the interests of its management of the "navigable airspace." As stated by Judge Dooling in American Airlines v. Hempstead, 272 F.Supp. 226, 230, aff'd, 398 F.2d 369: [...]
People are already showing up to work high - or drunk - so why should legalization mean a major change in the workplace? The stuff that gets you high also has medical applications. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You are an immoral activist. Always pushing for perversion and slavery.
People show up drunk as well. People get fired. Testing for pot use is not as simple. Would people who pop a positive on a random drug test still be fired? Would the employer be required to keep known, card-carrying, positive drug test potheads operating heavy industrial equipment to the possible endangerment of other employees who may be required to work with their back to the potheads? Would the employer be able to maintain a safe workplace? Would the employer be liable to be fined by OSHA if known card-carrying potheads are permitted to operate heavy industrial equipment in the workplace? Some law or regulation would be required for potheads who bring their high into the workplace. So does rat poison and morphine. Marijuana is not lawfully prescribable as medicine.
Are employers now required to keep drunks operating heavy industrial equipment? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. In protected employment (govt job, union job) they are not fired for being drunks. Employees may be fired for being under the influence at work. They may be subjected to a test to show whether they exceed a specific level of alcohol. People with at-will employment may be fired for no reason at all. They do not have a property right in the job. As you dodged the questions, I will repeat them for your convenience. Would people who pop a positive on a random drug test still be fired? Would the employer be required to keep known, card-carrying, positive drug test potheads operating heavy industrial equipment to the possible endangerment of other employees who may be required to work with their back to the potheads? Would the employer be able to maintain a safe workplace? Would the employer be liable to be fined by OSHA if known card-carrying potheads are permitted to operate heavy industrial equipment in the workplace? Some law or regulation would be required for potheads who bring their high into the workplace. And add: Would a card-carrying pothead be allowed to pilot a commercial airplane? What enforceable regulation for off-duty pot use could be created? Could the employee use pot during working hours? As there is no test similar to a breathlyzer for pot, what would be a legal limit and how would it be tested? Could an employer have an enforceable zero-tolerance policy?
Then there's no reason to expect any different treatment of employees who use legal marijuana - and all your questions are answered. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Thank you for esstablishing that you cannot answer the questions. I expected no less.
Thank you for esstablishing that you cannot answer the questions. Thank you for establishing that you're LF's biggest waste of time and bytes. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Nice to see you too, buttercup. Actually I lead a pretty quite life up here in Portland, Oregon. Where men are men, and many of the girls are too. I work and live once more in the big city nicknamed Little Beirut.
And if you go into the Multnomah County Court house and screening deputies looking through your bag will look at it and leave it alone. The place I work up here gave me a pee test and I passed it because THC was all they found.
These interpretations of the Medical Marijuana Amendment limit the effect of the amendment as an affirmative defense to criminal prosecution. The amendment does not make the use of medical marijuana a lawful activity, so as to preclude an employer from termination based on this conduct.
However, under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is listed as a controlled substance that cannot be lawfully prescribed and that the general public may not lawfully possess. 21 U.S.C. § 802(6); 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Sched. I(c)(10). There is no provision under Federal law that permits any class of the general public to lawfully possess marijuana, including those wishing to use marijuana for medical purposes. See 21 U.S.C. § 823(f) (providing an exception to the ban on possession of Schedule I drugs for federally approved research projects); see also Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005) (“By classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, the . . . possession of marijuana became a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration pre-approved research study.”). In contrast, the Controlled Substances Act expressly recognizes that “there is a lack of accepted safety for use of [marijuana] under medical supervision.” 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(A)–(C). See 21 U.S.C. § 829; see also United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 491 (2001) (“Whereas some other drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use, . . . the same is not true for marijuana.”).
#28. To: nolu chan, A Pole, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#25)
any law created by a state in conflict with the Constitution, federal law, or treaty is null and void
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#29. To: A Pole (#26)
Constitution of Massachusetts predates Federal Constitution and was never abolished.
#30. To: hondo68 (#28)
A State constitution trumps federal legislation, especially unconstitutional federal legislation.
#31. To: ConservingFreedom (#23)
#32. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)
"How do they get it home?"
#33. To: misterwhite (#32)
Why not simply leave the marijuana at home if, as you say, people are only going to use it at home?
#34. To: misterwhite (#31)
You take the action of drinking booze or smoking pot, the consequence is that you get in an accident and the rest of us pay for your care and rehabilitation the rest of your life.
#35. To: nolu chan (#29)
If it in any way conflicts with U.S. law, that part is null and void. Wake up. Federal law is supreme over all State law.
#36. To: misterwhite, aka Cassandra, beats his meat.. (#31)
You take the action of drinking booze or smoking pot, the consequence is that you get in an accident and the rest of us pay for your care and rehabilitation the rest of your life. -- misterwhite
#37. To: A Pole (#35)
n Federalist No. 33 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton [who was a supporter of making Federal Government stronger!] says:
#38. To: ConservingFreedom (#34)
"us paying is the consequence of voting for Dums and RINOs."
#39. To: A Pole (#35)
#40. To: ConservingFreedom (#33)
"I never said people CURRENTLY ARE only using it at home, but that if it's legal there, that's where they'll use it."
#41. To: misterwhite (#39)
(Edited)
Drug laws ARE pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
#42. To: A Pole (#41)
If citizens of a given state grow, trade and consume only within their own state, this power does not apply.
#43. To: misterwhite (#42)
"... the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity."
#44. To: A Pole (#43)
"The Court was wrong. "Undercutting" my a**. Constitution is clear."
#45. To: misterwhite (#38)
"us paying is the consequence of voting for Dums and RINOs."
I said WE are paying for the reckless behavior of others.
I have zero interest in paying more tax dollars to fund the consequences of legalizing yet another recreational drug.
#46. To: misterwhite (#40)
If there was ever an incentive to use a drug at home it would be the fact that it's illegal to use it in public.
#47. To: misterwhite (#40)
Yet there are 750,000 arrests every year of people who choose to smoke in public.
#48. To: A Pole (#35)
The key words are "in Pursuance thereof
#49. To: ConservingFreedom (#47)
"which can be detected in the course of a reasonable-suspicion pat-down with no public smoking involved."
#50. To: nolu chan (#27)
#51. To: ConservingFreedom (#46)
"And still greater incentive if it's illegal to use it in public but legal at home."
#52. To: misterwhite (#49)
You're trying to tell me they'd keep it inside the home.
#53. To: misterwhite (#44)
(Edited)
Constitution is clear."The FAA is authorized to regulate and control all flights -- interstate and intrastate
#54. To: nolu chan (#48)
The key is that if a court has not struck down the law as unconstitutional, they just slam your ass in prison
#55. To: Ferret Mike (#50)
I know well that there is no true justifiable reason for these laws. And the weight of that truth will eventually be the death of anti cannabis law. I am a political activist, not a lawyer.
And the weight of that truth will eventually be the death of anti cannabis law.
#56. To: A Pole (#54)
The key is that if a court has not struck down the law as unconstitutional, they just slam your ass in prison
#57. To: misterwhite, A Pole (#44)
The FAA is authorized to regulate and control all flights -- interstate and intrastate. Why? Because the failure to regulate intrastate flights would undercut the regulation of the interstate flights.
U.S. Supreme Court
"Now the power to regulate commerce embraces a vast field, containing not only many but exceedingly various subjects, quite unlike in their nature; some imperatively demanding a single uniform rule, operating equally on the commerce of the United States in every port, and some, like the subject now in question, as imperatively demanding that diversity, which alone can meet the local necessities of navigation."
"The United States of America is declared to possess and exercise complete and exclusive national sovereignty in the airspace of the United States. . . ."
"The imposition of curfew ordinances on a nationwide basis would result in a bunching of flights in those hours immediately preceding the curfew. This bunching of flights during these hours would have the twofold effect of increasing an already serious congestion problem and actually increasing, rather than relieving, the noise problem by increasing flights in the period of greatest annoyance to surrounding communities. Such a result is totally inconsistent with the objectives of the federal statutory and regulatory scheme."
"The aircraft and its noise are indivisible; the noise of the aircraft extends outward from it with the same inseparability as its wings and tail assembly; to exclude the aircraft noise from the Town is to exclude the aircraft; to set a ground level decibel limit for the aircraft is directly to exclude it from the lower air that it cannot use without exceeding the decibel limit."
#58. To: nolu chan (#55)
I doubt legal recreational marijuana use is in the near future. A major problem is in the workplace.
Derivatives without the stuff that gets you high will be developed and marketed.
#59. To: Ferret Mike (#50)
#60. To: ConservingFreedom (#58)
People are already showing up to work high - or drunk - so why should legalization mean a major change in the workplace?
The stuff that gets you high also has medical applications.
#61. To: nolu chan (#60)
People show up drunk as well. People get fired. [...] Would the employer be required to keep known, card-carrying, positive drug test potheads operating heavy industrial equipment
#62. To: ConservingFreedom (#61)
Are employers now required to keep drunks operating heavy industrial equipment?
People show up drunk as well. People get fired. Testing for pot use is not as simple.
#63. To: nolu chan (#62)
Employees may be fired for being under the influence at work. They may be subjected to a test to show whether they exceed a specific level of alcohol. People with at-will employment may be fired for no reason at all. They do not have a property right in the job.
#64. To: ConservingFreedom (#63)
Then there's no reason to expect any different treatment of employees who use legal marijuana - and all your questions are answered.
#65. To: nolu chan (#64)
"Then there's no reason to expect any different treatment of employees who use legal marijuana - and all your questions are answered."
#66. To: A K A Stone (#59)
#67. To: Deckard (#18)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]