it means disempowering the prohibitionists.

you can't do that, look at the impact on employment, where would all the stupid people work, enforcing stupid draconian laws? What would happen to the politicians, there would be no need of them if there were no empassioned causes to ban such undesirable behaviour as embibing drugs, smoking in public places, parking cars, swimming, building

What is needed is to teach personal responsibility, something that is lacking in the educational system.

"As Marijuana Prohibition Winds Down, What Will Control Freaks Ban Next?"

A better question is, "Once marijuana is legalized what will the aimless, immoral anarchists legalize next?

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.

Exactly. Punishing one for selling pot goes arm in arm with, say, punishing one for baking wedding cakes for only heterosexual couples - yet many who profess to support liberty in the latter case will gleefully stomp on it in the former.

"Once marijuana is legalized what will the aimless, immoral anarchists legalize next?

Why, every non-rights-violating activity, Carrie Nation: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

"Italy's highest court has legalised masturbating in public after a 69-year- old's sentence was overturned when he argued 'he only does it occasionally'."

Is that the kind of society in which you wish to live? Then might I suggest you move to Italy.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

"Italy's highest court has legalised masturbating in public after a 69-year- old's sentence was overturned when he argued 'he only does it occasionally'."

I've seen you make this ridiculous argument before - the problem is, masturbating in public does infringe on the rights of others.

Prohibition (is) 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.

--- "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

misterwhite --- "Italy's highest court has legalised masturbating in public after a 69-year- old's sentence was overturned when he argued 'he only does it occasionally'." ---- Is that the kind of society in which you wish to live? Then might I suggest you move to Italy.

masturbating in public does infringe on the rights of others.

Sure does - as does defecating, or making love to one's spouse, in public - none of which ought to be banned in private.

"... none of which ought to be banned in private."

750,000 people are arrested each year for simple marijuana possession. What percentage of those were arrested in a private location? 1%? .5%?

Yet this is your argument?

Only FDA approved, patented and privatized stuff will be allowed.

750,000 people are arrested each year for simple marijuana possession. What percentage of those were arrested in a private location?

Possessing marijuana in public violates no rights - using it in public arguably does.

"Possessing marijuana in public violates no rights - using it in public arguably does."

Why not simply leave the marijuana at home if, as you say, people are only going to use it at home?

Then arrests would drop from 750,000 per year to zero and there would be no need to legalize the use.

"Here in Oregon it has been nice to see these plants back in people's gardens now cannabis is legal."

Not worried about children having access?

They will ban natural remedies. First herbs, then even garlic, honey, ginger and lemon.

They're going after powdered caffeine right now.

Lawmakers call for ban on powdered caffeine

Here in Oregon it has been nice to see these plants back in people's gardens now cannabis is legal.

Marijuana is illegal in all 50 states and all 52 federal jurisdictions. Raich v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). "...the fact that marijuana is used 'for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician' cannot itself serve as a distinguishing factor. Id., at 1229. The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; if fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses."

State law that has been wordsmithed provides an affirmative defense against state prosecution for medical marijuana. An affirmative defense requires one to admit the commission of unlawful acts and plead an affirmative defense, an excuse accepted in accordance with a provision of state law. In doing so, a federal crime is admitted.

While a budget rider in effect until September 30th withdraws federal funds for prosecutiing marijuana in some states (not Ohio), if it is allowed to expire, or if funding is provided, the feds can prosecute unless the statute of limitations has expired.

If you flunk a random drug test, your employer can fire you. If you get a state-issued medical marijuana license, the feds can deny your application to purchase a gun.

Marijuana is not legal anywhere in the United States. The crime is currently not prosecuted in some places.

Why not simply leave the marijuana at home if, as you say, people are only going to use it at home?

How do they get it home?

#8 Actions without consequences.

You take the action of drinking booze or smoking pot, the consequence is that you get buzzed. There you go.

Marijuana is not legal anywhere in the United States. The crime is currently not prosecuted in some places.

The sovereignty rest in states.

Marijuana got decriminalized in Massachusetts by an amendement to the constitution.

The sovereignty rest in states.

Marijuana got decriminalized in Massachusetts by an amendement to the constitution.

Wake up. The supremacy clause of the Constitution clearly establishes that any law created by a state in conflict with the Constitution, federal law, or treaty is null and void. What is no longer a criminal act under State law, remains a punishable criminal act under Federal law.

The collective States have the power to act to repeal or amend. They do not have the power to unilaterally to make laws in conflict with Federal law.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 29 (2005)

The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail. It is beyond peradventure that federal power over commerce is "'superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare of necessities of their inhabitants,'" however legitimate or dire those necessities may be. Wirtz, 392 U.S. at 196 (quoting Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United States, 266 U.S. 405, 426 (1925))

The States may act to repeal or amend any part of the Constitution, but they have no lawful power to enact and enforce laws in any way with the constitutional law enacted by Congress.

McCullough v. Maryland, 17 US 316, 436 (1819) unanimous

The Court has bestowed on this subject its most deliberate consideration. The result is a conviction that the States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the General Government. This is, we think, the unavoidable consequence of that supremacy which the Constitution has declared.

The collective States have the power to act to repeal or amend. They do not have the power to unilaterally to make laws in conflict with Federal law.

Constitution of Massachusetts predates Federal Constitution and was never abolished.

Suck it up.

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.

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:

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.

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.:

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.”).

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.

any law created by a state in conflict with the Constitution, federal law, or treaty is null and void

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!

Constitution of Massachusetts predates Federal Constitution and was never abolished.

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.

A State constitution trumps federal legislation, especially unconstitutional federal legislation.

You are full of shit.

"How do they get it home?"

750,000 arrests of people taking marijuana home. What are the odds.

Why not simply leave the marijuana at home if, as you say, people are only going to use it at home?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

n 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]

Perfect rebuttal...

Bookmarked for the next time nolu sham tries to subvert the words of our Constitution. ( which is becoming a daily occurrence)

"us paying is the consequence of voting for Dums and RINOs."

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.

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".

"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."

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?

Drug laws ARE pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

"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.

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 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."

The Court was wrong. "Undercutting" my a**. Constitution is clear.

Anything can be banned that way.

"The Court was wrong. "Undercutting" my a**. Constitution is clear."

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.

"us paying is the consequence of voting for Dums and RINOs."

Why are you telling me who's to blame?

I'm simply discussing the topic you raised: consequences.

I said WE are paying for the reckless behavior of others.

We are paying for the reckless behavior of our elected legislators.

I have zero interest in paying more tax dollars to fund the consequences of legalizing yet another recreational drug.

I have zero interest in paying tax dollars to fund a futile and criminal-enriching ban on a recreational drug.

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.

And still greater incentive if it's illegal to use it in public but legal at home.

Yet there are 750,000 arrests every year of people who choose to smoke in public.

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.

The key words are "in Pursuance thereof

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.

"which can be detected in the course of a reasonable-suspicion pat-down with no public smoking involved."

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.

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.