United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: State Proposes Bold Law to Treat Pot Like Tobacco And Expunge All Records of Marijuana “Crimes”
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09 ... -records-marijuana-crimes.html
Published: Sep 27, 2016
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2016-09-28 07:51:26 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 31315
Comments: 181
Bold legislation introduced in New Jersey last week would not only treat cannabis like tobacco — legalizing it — but would expunge records for individuals previously convicted of certain marijuana-related ‘crimes.’ Should the bill, A4193, pass, convenience stores would be permitted to sell cannabis alongside cigarettes — available to anyone aged 19 and older. “This bill would legalize marijuana by removing all criminal liability associated with marijuana from the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice … as well as its regulation as a controlled dangerous substance under the New Jersey Controlled Dangerous Substances Act,” the proposed law states. Sponsored by Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll — once deemed the state Legislature’s “Most Conservative” member, as the Newark Patch pointed out — the legislation “[l]egalizes marijuana and provides for records expungement for certain past marijuana offenses; treats marijuana products similar to tobacco products, including the use of civil penalties for providing marijuana to persons under 19 years of age.” Carroll’s bill audacious thumbs its nose at the DEA’s vehemently criticized decision this year not to reschedule cannabis from its current inexplicable designation as a dangerous substance of no medical value, akin to heroin or cocaine. “To me it’s just not a big deal,” Carroll told Politico. “It’s already ubiquitous. Anybody who thinks this is somehow going to increase the availability of marijuana has never been 19. If that’s the case, then what’s the big deal about having it available at the local 7-Eleven?” Alcohol, after all, is a standard fixture at convenience stores and gas stations, with store owners facing fines and other civil penalties for underage distribution. “The whole point here is to get the government out of the business of treating at least marijuana use as a crime and treat it instead as a social problem,” Carroll continued, adding he’s never tried cannabis, personally. “You’re talking to the world’s most boring, straightest guy,” he said. “I’ve never popped a pill, never smoked a joint, nothing. I’ve never quite understood the all the allure of this stuff.” Apparently, though, he doesn’t feel his personal views concerning substances should override contrary opinions and choices. On the surface, the right-wing lawmaker would seem the last person sponsoring legislation taking such a radical departure from federal law — but on issues of personal freedom, his stances align most closely with libertarian philosophy. Carroll not only co-sponsored New Jersey’s medical cannabis legislation, in April he proposed lowering the state’s drinking age to 18, saying, according to the Patch, If you’re old enough to make the determination you want to enlist in the Marines, you’re old enough to determine if you want to have a beer. Despite an overwhelming public perception cannabis should at least be decriminalized and growing national disillusionment with the failed drug war — with the resultant largest prison population in the world, gang violence, strengthening of Mexican cartels, epidemic-level police violence, and inability of those in need to get life-saving medical cannabis treatment — the Drug Enforcement Agency opted to maintain marijuana prohibition this year. Should the proposed law indeed pass, New Jersey would join Alaska, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon in legal, recreational weed. In fact, degrees of decriminalization and legalization — mostly for medical use — exist in half the states in the nation. November’s election will likely expand those numbers. Ballot measures could potentially legalize recreational use in varying degrees in California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Nevada — and although they aren’t all expected to pass, the segment of the population arguing against legalization shrinks seemingly by the month. New Jersey lawmakers are attempting a multi-pronged approach to legalizing weed. Another bill, A2068, filed in January by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora — ironically, one of the most liberal members of the state Legislature — and State Sen. Nicholas Scutari would legalize cannabis and treat it akin to alcohol. A third is expected after several legislators, including Gusciora and Scutari, return from an information-gathering field trip examining legalization in Colorado in October. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — whom Carroll refers to as “the Fat Man” — will almost certainly veto any legislation concerning cannabis. But his tenure in office draws to a close just over a year from now. “We would like to get the ball rolling, even with this governor and even if he vetoes it, the choice then could be made to put it on the ballot through the Legislature or set the groundwork for the next administration,” Gusciora told Politico. “I think it’s only a matter of time.” Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-62) not displayed.
.
.
.
#63. To: A Pole (#60)
When a man kills his wife after eating garlic candy like the man did after he ate pot candy and when a teen leaps 4 stories to his death after eating garlic cookies like a teen did after eating pot cookies….then that possibility should be considered.
After wasting time reading this stupid fu*king thread, I'm just glad most of the people here are "Goofy old F*cks" not long for this world. This level of stupidity can't live on.
They've tried in the lab to establish a fatal dose of THC for larger mammals (dogs, monkeys) but were unable to kill any. Any claimed lethal dose of THC is an extrapolation from intravenous administration to mice. And as has already been pointed out - but bears repeating - a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. A 19-year-old boy shot those test results all to Hell after “he established a fatal dose of THC from eating six time the recommend dose of a marijuana cookie” and then jumping off a fourth-story balcony. Marijuana-related deaths happen, but not in the way you probably expect….not in lab tests on large mammals.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” President Jefferson used this power to prohibit trade with foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo of 1807) and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indian tribes (Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802). Keep in mind that James Madison -- the author of the Commerce Clause -- was Jefferson's Secretary of State and surely would have advised his President that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit". But he didn't. But you're saying that "to regulate" -- used once in the clause to apply to all three areas -- means something totally different when it comes to the states?
[...] Marijuana-related deaths Move those goalposts. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. James Madison -- the author of the Commerce Clause -- was Jefferson's Secretary of State and surely would have advised his President that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit". But he didn't. The point is not whether the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit, but whether prohibition advances or retards the goals that typically motivate regulation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You forget one thing. One joint can be for few people and effects can last for hours. On the other hand a heavy cigarette smoker can have 2 packs a day - 40 cigarettes together. So it could be 100x difference in inhaling smoke.
According to the link, the measures are leading everywhere but Arizona. And Trump and Clinton each say it's an issue for the states. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. My bad. I thought your argument was that a ban does not regulate. Oh, wait. Your argument was a ban does not regulate. Now it's about motivation. ''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin.''
If so, then who's responsible for keeping marijuana in the states?
-- Street marijuana can contain unknown impurities. Meaning, all this factors into any comparison to tobacco.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” President Jefferson used this power to prohibit trade with foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo of 1807) and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indian tribes (Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802). ------- But you're saying that "to regulate" -- used once in the clause to apply to all three areas -- means something totally different when it comes to the states? ---- misterwhite ''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin.'' -- Chief Justice Taft, Brooks v. United States ----- misterwhite posted President Jefferson used the commerce power to prohibit trade with BELLIGERENT foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo of 1807) and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the BELLIGERENT Indian tribes (Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802). ----- -- I'm saying "to regulate" -- used in the clause to apply to belligerent entities, (foreign or domestic), is something totally different when it comes to the states. ---- The people of our States are not evil, (despite the OPINION of Justice Taft) and are protected by the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
If you thought that, why did and do you respond with evidence about the different point that the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit? Are you that stupid? Or do you think other LFers are that stupid? More precisely, that as I said the result of a ban is to remove the substance from the possibility of effective regulation. You think regulation should have no particular motivation - that it should be done for the sheer sake of exercising force? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. If so, then who's responsible for keeping marijuana in the states? Why, primarily the states that don't want it - just as responsibility for keeping alcohol out of dry jurisdictions lies primarily with those jurisdictions. Congress has the authority if it so chooses to act against such interstate movement, though not against intrastate commerce. Glad I could clear that up for you. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Regulation includes prohibition, so your statement is gobbledygook. "You think regulation should have no particular motivation - that it should be done for the sheer sake of exercising force?" Motivation has nothing to do with it. Congress has the power to prohibit. It doesn't mean they have to.
Did that work with alcohol? I seem to recall that it didn't, and the "dry" states pressured Congress to pass the Webb-Kenyon Act, making it a federal crime. Naturally, that didn't work either, leading to Prohibition. Now you come along saying that it will work with recreational drugs. Or are you saying you know it won't work, but since the U.S. Constitution is a suicide pact, we have to do it?
Yes, they can. That is why they should be regulated. Even if were so, still you smoke them in minute amount comparing to cigarettes. More regulations and open competition could lower tar as it did with tobacco. Regulations, coming into open and competition will fix it. No reason not to add filter, other than maximizing effect of hard to get substance. OMG, how do you know?! Do you get munchies too? ;) Whitey the Pothead coming out of closet.
Who is BELLIGERENT here? War on Drugs warriors? Strange, fire water was bad to them. I would expect booze to be delivered to them BELLIGERENTS for FREE! Beside infected blankets of course.
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=48019&Disp=3#C3 Try reading the above.
Only to cretins. How many people were sickened or killed by tainted alcohol during Prohibition, and how many are today? I guess that's a yes. Freak. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. >>Did that work with alcohol? I seem to recall that it didn't, and the "dry" states pressured Congress Somebody always wants somebody else to pick up the check for their own preferences. According to President Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, "The lack of federal enforcement rendered the statute [the Webb-Kenyon Act] virtually meaningless." It wasn't tried and found wanting - it wasn't seriously tried. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Thanks for playing. We have some wonderful consolation prizes for you on your way out.
You mean the federal government found it impossible to control 50,000 miles of borders surrounding the 25 "dry" states? But they could if we legalized drugs, huh?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You mean the federal government found it impossible Opposite - they never tried. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. But they would if it were drugs. You're delusional.
But they would if it were drugs. Why would they work any less vigorously against federally illegal interstate drug transactions than they do now against federally illegal intrastate drug transactions? And suppose they chose not to: how does that amount to a "suicide pact"? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. If they only have authority over interstate transactions, they'd have to be there the moment the drug crossed the border. Either side of the state border is out-of-bounds. "how does that amount to a "suicide pact"?" We both know it wouldn't work. Congress published findings saying it wouldn't work. So to say we should do it anyways is a suicide pact.
Not so - a car with Colorado plates parked in Oklahoma, with a trunk full of marijuana, has broken Oklahoma law, for starters - and has established probable cause to retrace the driver's steps and determine whether a Colorado seller sold him the pot Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties. "Congress published findings" - BFD. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. We were discussing federal enforcement of interstate commerce. At least, I thought we were. Are you saying the DEA has the power to enforce Oklahoma law? Doesn't that go against your argument that this should be a state issue? Marijuana is fungible. You can't look at it and say. "That's Colorado pot!" The driver would say to the DEA that it's Oklahoma pot being transported intrastate -- which is beyond their jurisdiction. Can Oklahoma law enforcement arrest this guy for possession? Yes. But again, that's not what we're discussing.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Supreme Court made a ruling - BFD. And the legislature passed a law -- BFD. And the people passed a referendum - BFD. Your anarchist slip is showing.
That 1913 effort is very unlike what is in effect today, and what would almost certainly be used to regulate marijuana if it ever becomes legal. Manufacturers do not sell alcohol to retailers. Manufacturers sell to licensed distributors. The distributor license is worth a small fortune and the distributor will not risk losing it to make distributions to a dry county. The dry county typically does not prohibit simple possession. They do not license public places to sell alcoholic beverages, but may license private clubs. They do not license any retail stores to sell alcohol. Drinking publicly may be prohibited. Basically, they put all the bars and liquor stores out of business. You go to the nearest wet county to buy your booze, beer and wine and drink it at home. It is a fairly simple matter to frequently and irregularly inspect the distributors. As it is legally available in the nearest wet county, there is not much market for shine. http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/california-weed/article57821673.html By Christopher Cadelago California was the first state to allow medical marijuana. Now, two decades later, voters are expected to be asked whether to legalize recreational use of the drug. The legalization measure most likely to qualify for the statewide November ballot is the product of months of negotiations between groups with varying interests, from drug-law reformers, to growers and distributors, to famous financiers and politicians. Here’s a primer. Q: So, is California going to legalize pot? A: The state’s marijuana industry is often described as a wild west of sorts: There are no regulations, taxes or environmental protections for recreational cannabis. The measure would legalize possession of 1 ounce of marijuana and cultivation of six plants by adults over the age of 21, and create laws for distribution and sale. It would impose a 15 percent tax on retail sales, and cultivation taxes of $9.25 per ounce of flowers and $2.75 per ounce of leaves. Localities could ban recreational marijuana businesses in their jurisdictions with local voter approval. An updated version of the measure also allows localities to enact bans without holding a vote of the people. Q: Is this the next Gold Rush? A: An initial financial analysis shows it could bring in additional state and local tax revenues ranging from the high hundreds of millions to more than $1 billion a year. Most of the proceeds must be spent for specified purposes such as substance-use disorder education, prevention, treatment and law enforcement. Q: Who is behind this effort? A: The official proponents are Donald Lyman, a retired physician, and Michael Sutton, a conservationist. Sutton served on the California Fish and Game Commission while Lyman drafted the California Medical Association’s paper in which the group called for regulating recreational cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco. Among its financiers is billionaire venture capitalist Sean Parker. Its highest-profile political supporter is Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. Q: What’s going on in other states? A: Four states – Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, and the District of Columbia – have legalized recreational pot. The last legalization push in California, Proposition 19 in 2010, failed at the ballot box, 53.5 percent to 46.5 percent. Q: Who would be in charge here? A: Licensing and regulation of marijuana would be handled by a Bureau of Marijuana Control within the Department of Consumer Affairs. The Department of Food and Agriculture would be charged with licensing and overseeing marijuana cultivation while the Department of Public Health would license and oversee manufacturing and testing. The state Board of Equalization would collect marijuana taxes and the state Controller’s Office would distribute the revenue. Q: Would legal marijuana cost more? A: Some proponents say they actually expect the prices – even accounting for the taxes – will drop some once the licenses are issued and after the first harvest. Part of their reasoning is the so-called “prohibition tax” marijuana purchasers currently pay. They also point to more competition – and falling prices – in states such as Washington and Colorado. Q: Could I grow my own? A: Personal cultivation is allowed, but no more than six plants could be cultivated, harvested, dried or processed in each home or apartment, or on its grounds. The initiative would allow industrial hemp to be grown as an agricultural product as well as for agricultural or academic research. Q: Would this allow “Big Marijuana” corporations to take over? A: The measure bans large-scale licenses in the first five years, through Jan. 1, 2023. It states that the licensing powers are to avoid “unreasonable restraints on competition by creation or maintenance of unlawful monopoly power.” Q: Where are the organized opponents? A: Proponents’ first hurdle was trying to satisfy advocates for legalized marijuana. They have been able to get many, but not all, on board with their plans. Now they likely will have to contend with an organized campaign against the measure, presumably from law enforcement and even organized labor. In 2010, opponents helped sink the measure by pointing to a provision they argued would limit employers’ ability to penalize workers who used marijuana – unless it impaired their job performance. The critics ran ads showing teens, drivers and nurses under the influence of marijuana. Q: What about children? A: Marijuana businesses would be banned from locating within 600 feet of schools, and cannabis products could not be advertised or marketed to children. Specifically, the law says pot products can’t be designed in a way that appeals to kids, or could easily be confused with candy or other enticements. Advertising could only be displayed where roughly 72 percent of the audience is expected to be 21 years of age or older, as determined by audience-composition data. Minors convicted of marijuana-related offenses would have to complete drug-prevention education or counseling and community service. Q: Could you drive after you’ve smoked? A: The measure would retain existing laws that make it illegal to drive while impaired by marijuana. Here’s how it would work: The California Highway Patrol would get $3 million a year for four years to come up with protocols to determine whether a driver is too high to drive. Motorists also would be barred from having an open container of marijuana or pot products while driving, operating or riding in the passenger seat of a car, boat or aircraft. Q: Could you go to work high? A: The law would maintain the rights of employers to require drug-free workplaces or enact policies prohibiting marijuana use by employees during work hours. No state currentlly can, or has, made marijuana legal. Under state4 law, it has been decriminalized. The majority of the cost of booze and cigarettes is tax. If marijuana is made legal, it will be regulated and taxed. Expect something like Monsanto marijuana to dominate the market through licensing and regulation. Expect regulation and licensing/permits and recordkeeping and taxing to strictly control distribution via licensed distributors. Expect them to tax, tax, tax. There is no need to control state lines when they "own" the distributors via their monopoly on the issuance of licenses. It's not 1913 anymore Toto. https://www.ttb.gov/business-central/alcohol-wholesaler.shtml Federal Requirements for Alcohol Wholesalers Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms PART 1—BASIC PERMIT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT, NONINDUSTRIAL USE OF DISTILLED SPIRITS AND WINE, BULK SALES AND BOTTLING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS No person, except pursuant to a basic permit issued under the Act, shall: (a) Engage in the business of purchasing for resale at wholesale, distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages; or, (b) While so engaged, receive, sell, offer or deliver for sale, contract to sell, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, directly or indirectly or through an affiliate, distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages so purchased.
Are you saying the DEA has the power to enforce Oklahoma law? The DEA has the power to turn him over to the state authorities and thereby facilitate the initiation of a federal investigation. Beat that straw man. So have you dropped this "suicide pact" tomfoolery? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Supreme Court made a ruling - BFD. And the legislature passed a law -- BFD. And the people passed a referendum - BFD. Your anarchist slip is showing. Baseless self-serving "findings" have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate. And as a matter of fact, the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is a much B-er D than laws, referenda, or even rulings. 'The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.' - Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Graves vs. New York A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Expect something like Monsanto marijuana to dominate the market through licensing and regulation. Expect regulation and licensing/permits and recordkeeping and taxing to strictly control distribution via licensed distributors. Beats the Hell out of the futile and criminal-enriching status quo. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Nope. Your entire scenario is fantasy. If the DEA is limited to only enforcing interstate commerce, what are they doing in this guy's trunk to begin with? He's parked in Oklahoma. He's not crossing any interstate border. How can they prove he crossed the border with the pot? They can't. How do they know it's Colorado pot? They don't. Any search they did is inadmissable in court. They ain't turning him over to anybody. They're out of their jurisdiction. They can't prove he broke federal law ... unless they see him cross the state border with the pot.
If you insist on taking it literally rather than for the expression it is, yeah.
More carcinogenic, cancerous, poor health decision making, drug addict loving BULLSHIT... pro drug, pro liberal hippie propaganda. No matter how you slice it, Decktard, marijuana use is not healthy. Stfu. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You don't really think you make one vote difference, spamming Stones site and ruining it, for your own drug addict loving agenda? You waste your stoner loving time. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Comments (103 - 181) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestGarlic has medicinal properties. Should it be banned?
#64. To: all (#0)
#65. To: Gatlin (#52)
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 mandated the EPA to protect the public from "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" by regulating the manufacture and sale of chemicals. Poisons are defined as chemicals.
#66. To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
They've tried in the lab to establish a fatal dose of THC for larger mammals (dogs, monkeys) but were unable to kill any. Any claimed lethal dose of THC is an extrapolation from intravenous administration to mice.
#67. To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
"And as has already been pointed out - but bears repeating - a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."
#68. To: Gatlin (#66)
The Toxic Substances Control Act
#69. To: misterwhite (#67)
"a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#61)
I guarantee you that if honestly studied, we would discover that any direct inhalation of any burnt leaves directly into the lungs increases death risk and reduces longevity by about the same proportion, due to soot and lung damage.
#71. To: Deckard (#0)
Ballot measures could potentially legalize recreational use in varying degrees in California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Nevada — and although they aren’t all expected to pass, the segment of the population arguing against legalization shrinks seemingly by the month.
#72. To: ConservingFreedom (#69)
"The point is not whether the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit, but whether prohibition advances or retards the goals that typically motivate regulation."
-- Chief Justice Taft, Brooks v. United States
#73. To: ConservingFreedom (#71)
"it's an issue for the states."
#74. To: A Pole (#70)
"So it could be 100x difference in inhaling smoke."
-- Marijuana contains twice the carcinogens and four times the tar as cigarettes
-- Joints vary in size, so you can't compare them apples-to-apples with cigarettes.
-- Joints are smoked unfiltered
-- Users draw marijuana smoke deep into the lungs and hold it
-- Joints are smoked down to the last tar-and-carcinogen-soaked millimeter
#75. To: ConservingFreedom, y'all, -- even the anti-constiutionalistic misterwhite (#69)
ConservingFreedom (#65) ---- "And as has already been pointed out - but bears repeating - a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."
#76. To: misterwhite (#72)
"The point is not whether the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit, but whether prohibition advances or retards the goals that typically motivate regulation."
My bad. I thought your argument was that a ban does not regulate.
Oh, wait. Your argument was a ban does not regulate.
Now it's about motivation.
#77. To: misterwhite (#73)
"Trump and Clinton each say it's an issue for the states."
#78. To: ConservingFreedom (#76)
"More precisely, that as I said the result of a ban is to remove the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."
#79. To: ConservingFreedom (#77)
"Why, primarily the states that don't want it - just as responsibility for keeping alcohol out of dry jurisdictions lies primarily with those jurisdictions."
#80. To: misterwhite (#74)
-- Street marijuana can contain unknown impurities.
-- Marijuana contains twice the carcinogens and four times the tar as cigarettes
-- Joints vary in size, so you can't compare them apples-to-apples with cigarettes.
-- Joints are smoked unfiltered
-- Users draw marijuana smoke deep into the lungs and hold it
-- Joints are smoked down to the last tar-and-carcinogen-soaked millimeter 
#81. To: tpaine (#75)
President Jefferson used the commerce power to prohibit trade with BELLIGERENT foreign nations
and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the BELLIGERENT Indian tribes
#82. To: A Pole (#81)
Who is BELLIGERENT here?
#83. To: misterwhite (#78)
"the result of a ban is to remove the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."
Regulation includes prohibition, so your statement is gobbledygook.
"You think regulation should have no particular motivation - that it should be done for the sheer sake of exercising force?"
Motivation has nothing to do with it.
#84. To: misterwhite (#79)
>>"Why, primarily the states that don't want it - just as responsibility for keeping alcohol out of dry jurisdictions lies primarily with those jurisdictions."
to pass the Webb-Kenyon Act, making it a federal crime. Naturally, that didn't work either
#85. To: ConservingFreedom (#83)
#86. To: ConservingFreedom (#84)
"The lack of federal enforcement rendered the statute [the Webb-Kenyon Act] virtually meaningless."
#87. To: misterwhite (#85)
#88. To: misterwhite (#86)
'According to President Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, "The lack of federal enforcement rendered the statute [the Webb-Kenyon Act] virtually meaningless."'
#89. To: ConservingFreedom (#88)
"Opposite - they never tried."
#90. To: misterwhite (#89)
"Opposite - they never tried."
#91. To: ConservingFreedom (#90)
"Why would they work any less vigorously against federally illegal interstate drug transactions than they do now against federally illegal intrastate drug transactions?"
#92. To: misterwhite (#91)
If they only have authority over interstate transactions, they'd have to be there the moment the drug crossed the border. Either side of the state border is out-of-bounds.
"how does that amount to a "suicide pact"?"
We both know it wouldn't work. Congress published findings saying it wouldn't work.
So to say we should do it anyways is a suicide pact.
#93. To: ConservingFreedom (#92)
(Edited)
"with a trunk full of marijuana, has broken Oklahoma law, for starters"
#94. To: ConservingFreedom (#92)
"Congress published findings" - BFD.
#95. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite (#84)
According to President Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, "The lack of federal enforcement rendered the statute [the Webb-Kenyon Act] virtually meaningless." It wasn't tried and found wanting - it wasn't seriously tried.
Here’s how marijuana legalization would work in California
ccadelago@sacbee.com §1.22 Wholesalers.
#96. To: misterwhite (#93)
"with a trunk full of marijuana, has broken Oklahoma law, for starters [DECEPTIVELY OMITTED BY MISTERWHITE:] - and has established probable cause to retrace the driver's steps and determine whether a Colorado seller sold him the pot"
look at it and say. "That's Colorado pot!"
"how does that amount to a "suicide pact"?"
We both know it wouldn't work. Congress published findings saying it wouldn't work.
So to say we should do it anyways is a suicide pact.
"Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties."
[crickets]
#97. To: misterwhite (#94)
"Congress published findings" - BFD.
#98. To: nolu chan (#95)
If marijuana is made legal, it will be regulated and taxed.
#99. To: ConservingFreedom (#96)
"The DEA has the power to turn him over to the state authorities and thereby facilitate the initiation of a federal investigation."
#100. To: ConservingFreedom (#96)
"So have you dropped this "suicide pact" tomfoolery?"
#101. To: Deckard (#0)
#102. To: Deckard (#0)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]