Yes. Savory.
Posted on 07/30/2012 10:38:42 AM PDT by Shout Bits
This November, as many as eight States will have marijuana ballot issues before their voters. Most are medicinal issues, but States like Oregon and Colorado will decide on full legalization. Just as judging the average alcohol drinker by observing gutter drunks is unfounded, most marijuana users are not actually wild smelly Occupy Wall Street hippies (as annoying as they can be). Pollsters estimate that 25 million Americans regularly consume marijuana, and there simply are not enough Rasta cab drivers and jazz fans to fill those ranks. Politically, the tide is turning in favor of recreational marijuana use, but for the 90% of Americans who are not regular partakers, the marijuana issue has more impact than getting high. In fact, the marijuana issue is a test bed for the entirety of the wrongs Washington imposes on the States and the People.
Marijuana has, of course, been proven to be medically benign. Contrary to government propaganda, marijuana does not engender violent or dangerous behavior – unlike tequila. Further, the drug's use does not seem to rise or fall based on its legality. In The Netherlands, where marijuana is more or less legal, its use is less prevalent than in the US, where marijuana is mostly illegal. Dreamers who think states can balance their budgets by taxing marijuana like tobacco or booze will be disappointed as marijuana usage cannot generate a large tax base as do cigarettes and liquor. Those who foresee a fall in crime as the illegal profit is eliminated are also overly optimistic. Until all vices are legal and regulated, cartels will still trade in violence. In short, should marijuana become legal in the US, expect essentially no impact.
Why, then is the marijuana issue relevant? The marijuana issue brings the 10th Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Supremacy Clause to a poignant head and is a colorful wedge for those who generally support individual liberty and responsibility. Washington's corruption withers in the light of the marijuana issue.
In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that FDR's multi-year attempt to help farmers by forcing them to farm less acreage than they wanted was constitutional. They held that even if farm produce were grown in a single state with seed, fertilizer, and water from only that state, for consumption intrastate, the Commerce clause allowed Washington to dictate any aspect of that farm's operation because the activities of the farm might affect markets out of state. Nothing had to cross state lines to be regulated as interstate commerce. Fast forward 80 years, and this same logic (under a different name) allows Washington to force individuals to buy a minimum level of healthcare products. For those who think Washington knows best, these rulings are wonderful news, but for the libertarian they invite tyranny.
Regardless of Supreme Court decisions, the plain language and original intent of the Commerce Clause is to ensure that states do not enact trade barriers between themselves. It does not say that commerce may be regulated within a state; it does not say that the commerce of individuals may be regulated. The Commerce Clause puts regulating interstate commerce at the same level as trade with foreign nations and Indian tribes, clearly implying that Washington's role is to facilitate free trade, not to dictate how many acres a farmer may plant. Quite often the plain language reading of a law is truer than the convolutions of talented specialist minds.
FDR outlawed marijuana about the same time as he regulated farmers and under the same Commerce Clause authority (in the form of a tax, if that sounds familiar). Indeed, most of Washington's departures from the Constitution's enumerated powers stem from the abuse of the Commerce Clause. Should a State fully legalize marijuana this November, the very heart of Washington's bloat will be tested. Interestingly, Justice Roberts's horrid logic that Obamacare was illegal under the Commerce Clause but legal as a tax gains traction in such a showdown. Should a State's perfect document, its Constitution, be amended to legalize marijuana, that State would be obligated to take the issue to the Supreme Court unless Washington backs down. The marijuana issue may give libertarians another swipe at the Commerce Clause, a gift given by States broadly in favor of Obamacare.
Can Washington imprison someone for growing a plant in Colorado using Colorado materials, all for Colorado or even personal consumption? Is there any boundary to Washington's power over the States and the People? Is Washington's law supreme over a State's, even when Washington's law is not authorized under the Constitution? Does the 10th Amendment mean anything? Should marijuana be legalized somewhere this November, these questions might be revisited and the tide of Washington's tyranny over its purported masters could be reversed. Even for those who find the herbal libation distasteful, these are good reasons to vote to legalize marijuana.
Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/ShoutBits
Source, please.
Sure. Here it is.
By the way, since I was only half right about guessing the response, I’m pinging my other half (and his other half as well) so there will be a chance for one of the three halves of us to recoup our predicting record.
Just a side note - the last person who thought that several of us (Dammit! Move over woman!.......dang stalkers!) were the same person was sent to a very special part of the Outer Darkness.
I, of course, have no power to do such a thing, but if you should happen to find yourself there, say “Hi!” to Warner for me (us) ((and “them”)).
And at that point, your state can take that issue to federal court for resolution.
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
13 Feb. 1829Letters 4:14--15
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Do you want a Constitution that is an "enduring document", fixed as it was understood and intended by those who wrote and ratified it until such time as it is amended, or do you want a "living document" that can be molded into whatever meaning we can imagine, to suit whatever it is we want at the moment?
Yes. Savory.
There was no declaration of war, there is no discernible "enemy". The "war on drugs" is as much a real "war" as the "war on poverty".
We do not make a declaration of war against pirates. To date, no Nation-State has agreed to be regarded as responsible for abetting the importation of drugs into our cities. They all allege it is the activity of criminals whom they have not been able to control. Do not doubt that had a Nation State deliberately sent drugs into our cities as a matter of their governmental policy (as did the British to China) it would no doubt be regarded as a defacto act of war, and a consequent declaration of war would likely not be far behind. Again, as the miscreants who are engaging in such activities are not officially sanctioned by any government, they can only possess the legal classification of that given to Pirates; Independent agents who are waging a low intensity attack upon our nation.
In your mind that rationalization might justify the drug war, while de-legitimizing all the other abuses of the Commerce Clause, but in Washington and in the courts it will not.
I do not think with the mind(s) of the Washington Courts. Were they to think with mine, they would likely make far wiser and logically consistent decisions.
I tend to agree with that line of reasoning.
For example, here in Massachusetts last week there was a horrific home invasion where two young men were murdered . . . largely, perhaps even exclusively . . . because they were involved in the low-level mary jane black market. Now, marijuana itself did not lead to this situation, but the trafficking in it did, as this particular residence was targeted because the gang-bangers knew that there were drugs and cash at the house. The people involved, on both sides, knew the rules of the game they were playing.
I am not a dang stalker, Shibumi/humblegunner, and if you don’t get your bony elbow out of my ribs, you will find out more than you care to about the Outer Darkness.
Who am I today? I lost the schedule. Dang.
Nothing about drugs there. When the Constitution was written and ratified, the people who did that understood wars to be declared and fought among nations, not inanimate objects.
Alleging an injury after the fact is all fine and good for the legal system's Civil law methodology, and while such procedural rules may be sufficient to mitigate disputes between two parties, it is certainly insufficient when dealing with damages and injuries which may affect thousand or millions of parties. When the public is to be put at risk of serious injury, it becomes imperative that officials take all appropriate steps PRIOR TO THE FACT of a potential injury to alleviate or mitigate any potential damage as a result of it.
One State cannot build nuclear devices and allow their street gangs to play with them. Such recklessness puts States downwind from the fallout zone at risk for death or injury. No! While "prior restraint" may be prohibited in our legal system, it is a required part of any activity which shows serious potential at being a danger to the public at large.
Consider Typhoid Mary. They ended up having to lock her up because she continued to spread typhoid wherever she went. Her threat to the public at large was deemed to be too grave to allow the issue to be resolved by ex post facto injuries. Prior Restraint was permitted in her case because the threat to the public was just too great.
Now I am not suggesting the legalization of Marijuana is in this category of drastic and obvious potential danger to others, but the legalization of hard drugs definitely is in my opinion. The problem for marijuana is that the arguments being advanced in favor of it work just as well for the harder drugs, and so they are connected by the same philosophical thread.
Whatever argument justifies Marijuana on the basis of "rights" also justifies Cocaine and Heroin on the same basis, and those are simply a dire threat to any society which will tolerate them. It is very like the issue of "Gay Marriage", if such should be enacted into law, will also justify Polygamy.
Nothing about fissile material in there either. It is self evident by the context. If we have the right and duty under our constitution to prevent the smuggling of fissile material into our nation, then we likewise have the right to prevent the smuggling of any other material which may be used to kill or injure Americans.
Do we have the right and duty to prevent people from smuggling fissile material? Or Biological Weapons? Or Nerve Agents?
If you honestly belive any state would do this, then you need to find somewhere else to live. If you don't really believe they'd do it, then you need to stop building strawmen. You insult the intelligence of everyone else when you try to put crap like that out there as a rational argument.
And how many pot smokers are busted for DUI compared to how many drunks ? And what are the statistics on fatalities ?
I think you'll find the drunks are far and away the major threat. Like 1000 times.
Outer Darkness bar and grill.
Come for the coffee, stay for the zombies.
And in 2012, 1,316,562,729 people are addicted to government.
They need my coffee.
It will help them see things more clearly.
Or at least at warp speed.
Federal authority to exercise control over goods coming across our border from foreign countries is well within the original intent of the Commerce Clause. This is commerce "with foreign nations", not interstate commerce. The were specified separately because "with" and "among" mean different things, and were intended to be treated differently. If it was all intended to be treated the same, they would simply have said "to regulate commerce" and left it at that.
Hmmm... Indeed.
I really don’t care if someone wants to fry his brains on drugs. I have no intention of ever using them.
I’ll stick to a tablespoon of good whiskey a few times a week.
Being in my right mind - always a plus!
It's 'pro-freedom' to be against the pointless War on [Some] Drugs. The anti-drug illusion is a scam to scare people into handing over their liberties.
You see, the only way to create an illusion of control over drug use in a somewhat free society was to severely punish the very few users that got caught. Also, it helped to automatically turn possession of multiple doses into "dealing".
We now have corrupt ‘magic object’ drug laws where a tiny palm-able package planted on a citizen with NO other evidence at all can lead to mandatory jail time and/or seizure of all the citizen's property for supposed "dealing". It happens ALL the time and I speak out about this because it happened to one of my best friends. It ruined his life and the corrupt cop was finally caught years later.
Here is just one example that was all but censored in the corrupt US media. This scum didn't do a single day in jail because he threatened to bring down the whole NYPD: “[Judge] Reichbach called [ex-NYPD Detective] Arbeeny’s behaviour ‘not only reprehensible abuse of trust and authority but the corruption of the entire criminal justice system.”
I agree that abuse of truly addictive and toxic substances can be very damaging to individuals and those close to them. However, we have to look at the big picture before giving our rights away for a fruitless corrupt war that only serves to funnel money into the 'right' pockets.
The War on [SOME] Drugs is yet another corrupt government money-funneling operation. After 40 years and constant increases in spending, drug abuse has not decreased at all. Just open your eyes:
-IF drug prohibition was about keeping toxic, addictive substances from people, why is alcohol sold as easily as candy to anyone over 21? It is 100% medical fact that it rots every organ of the body starting with the liver and brain. It is 100% medical fact that alcohol is so addictive that you can DIE from the withdrawal.
-The true drug cartels sit in beautiful corporate offices, bribe doctors with perks and pretty “sales reps” and they ship entire WAREHOUSES full of toxic/addictive drugs. All the top US pharmaceutical companies sell drugs that act identically and are just as dangerous as the street drugs they have replaced:
*Heroin – Sold pure as Diamorphine. Countless synthetic derivatives such as OxyContin, Percocet, Fentanyl (considered 5-10 times stronger than natural heroin!). Many can be crushed and injected, just like heroin.
*Cocaine – Procaine, some amphetamines affect the brain almost identically- Ritalin, Adderall, Concerta. Pure Cocaine is also manufactured as an anesthetic.
*Meth - Pure Methamphetamine is sold under the brand name Desoxyn and is even approved for children.
*Hallucinogens – Hypnotic/psychotropic drugs like Ambien, Seroquel and a countless array of various “anti-psychotics”.
*Entirely new classes of addictive toxic drugs that didn’t exist in nature - Most notably benzodiazepines like Valium and Xanax.
Since 2008, the number of addicts and injuries from Rx Opiates alone has exceeded that of every illegal drug combined! That is only the Rx opiates – not the amphetamines, not the muscle relaxants, not the psychotropics, not the hypnotics, not the benzos, etc. Don’t you see how most famous addicts now die from prescription drugs and not illegal ones? Big Pharma is now the top dealer and the WOD storm troopers are their enforcers.
If you want to see just some of the people big Pharma is destroying go to any shady pharmacy or ‘pain clinic’ about an hour before opening time. Ghost-white silent people sweating, shaking, standing in any weather while watching the seconds tick down until their fix. Then there are those that can't even leave their homes. They get their Rx dope delivered and often paid for by taxpayers. The Bob Marley listening stoners hanging out in front of pot shops are nothing in comparison.
The drug industry propaganda is quite good - Think about how many people out there would jail someone for growing a pot plant yet think nothing of the drug companies FORCIBLY DRUGGING OUR YOUNG CHILDREN in school with amphetamines and making them future addicts for LIFE...
Well, let’s do this rightly: Full Props for sticking around and engaging, and Full Props for not trying to simply drive up your hit count. Nods to ya.
Now for the debate:
Grass is a gateway drug to harder crap. It devolves you to the point where the only thing that matters is the next fix. Not only do you use drugs, you use people.
THC was in the bloodstream of Trayvon©, the Patron Saint of Skittles, when he beat GZ’s head into the pavement. The kid was also on Lean, a street drug with a harder buzz. Seems that grass just wasn’t good enough.
I have seen and read and heard enough Libertarians who have confided that the real platform of the LP is to smoke free dope. And if it’s taxpayer-funded dope, so much the better.
Throwing a Constitutional mantle over its shoulders does not disguise the underlying truth of life-altering narcotics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.