Posted on 01/08/2018 6:28:34 AM PST by NobleFree
The tokers were renting the house next door and toking outside because their mother did not want them toking in the house.
There is now a push to outlaw sugared drinks, smoking regular cigarettes is verboten, etc., but pot is heading for a free reign.
WTF?
And the fact that law existed to allow that shooting is the reason to get rid of the law instead of ignoring it. One day, someone might enforce it.
Get rid of the law.
My BIL smokes ditch weed. My sister makes him go outside to smoke because her work clothes smelled like it. Horrible smell.
Where are all those democraps and Rino’s who decry that evil Sessions? All this requires is a quick piece of legislation removing Marijuana from the list of illegal narcotics. Come on, folks, Sessions is simply saying his office can’t overlook a legal statute passed by a long dead legislature. Step up Big Boys! Show us that you have the balls to take a recorded position.
The point is that it is a law that has no justification under the Constitution. Period.
Or he could go after sanctuary cities that offer safe harbor for the Mexican cartels and their mules who provide the marijuana.
It has been almost a year but we’re still waiting for him to enforce federal laws there.
Used to be a big Sessions fan, but I’m out of patience with him.
Thus far his `secure our border’ talk has been just that: talk. He hasn’t walked the walk.
Remember: anti-drug, anti-tobacco, and anti-alcohol laws were all the product of PROGRESSIVES agitating for social engineering policies.
They all heavily involved ethnic stereotyping and race-baiting to motivate public support.
Their crusade against chewing tobacco and filthy spittoons led to an increase in cigar smoking. Their legislation against the evils of cigar smoking and careful legal definitions about what constituted a cigar led to the development of a product that bypassed those definitions: it was called the “little cigar,” better known as the cigarette. And we know how that turned out.
Their attacks on the drinking of alcoholic beverages, at a time when US per capita consumption was already quickly and spontaneously dropping before they ever got on the bandwagon, led to two great evils:
1) The progressives knew that with prohibition the federal government would lose its principal source of revenue, so they led the push for the income tax. They probably saw that per capita alcohol consumption was plummeting and knew that decreasing federal revenue would mean an increasingly poor federal government that, once they gained control, would not have the funds needed to enact the rest of their agenda.
2) At the time there were city by city crime syndicates. Within each city there were fierce battles between rival syndicates for control of territory as well as control of the city government. But the nationwide prohibition on the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages created the condition for organized crime on an national and international scope. Shortly after prohibition was made law, representatives from the various city crime syndicates met to work out a plan for cooperation in the importing, distribution, and sales of a formerly legal but still greatly desired product.
Thanks to the progressives and their desire to control the appetites of the public to enact their own vision of the perfect society, we got the twin scourges of skyrocketing federal taxation of all kinds enforced by the IRS that was the legal mirror image of the mob and organized international crime that exchanged rum-runners for narco-traficantes and all the subsidiary crime that came with it, including pleas for ever-increasing levels of federal efforts to combat a problem entirely of its own creation, and the creation of asset-forfeiture laws that have led to extreme abuse of the public they were meant to protect by giving law enforcement the means to seize money and property on the flimsiest of excuses and in the absence of any crime and to retain it with no conviction of their victims with the help of a separate asset forfeiture court system that almost always sides with the cops and lets them keep the rewards of their privateering.
Before these progressive-sponsored anti-substance laws were passed, there were people who used the various substances, but there were no widespread epidemics of crime caused by their use.
But now, thanks to the progressives, we have what we always had PLUS a massive federal government, oppressive regulations and punitive taxes, highly organized international crime syndicates, and all the crime that all those things have brought.
Thanks for worse than NOTHING, progressives.
Then get the law ruled unconstitutional. Until then, it is the law of the land.
Your examples you cited were rescinded or enacted through the legislative process.
When the definition if marriage can be a states right’s issue, then pot can be one. Fair?
The point is that it is a law that has no justification under the Constitution. Period.
___________________________________________________
80% of all federal laws face the same criticism. When we repeal those, then fine...pot can be a states right’s issue.
“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” - Abraham Lincoln
status quo announced by US Attorney in Colorado (Feds still looking the other way ...):
http://kdvr.com/2018/01/04/u-s-attorney-for-colorado-status-quo-on-marijuana-prosecutions/
“Then get the law ruled unconstitutional. Until then, it is the law of the land.”
Laws that blatantly violate the Constitution should be resisted. I’m guessing you would agree with that if fedgov were to infringe on the Second Amendment.
Doesn’t the 10th deserve the same defense as the 2nd?
In before the first...oh, never mind.
Inappropriate, until they start shooting potheads for possession, without a trial.
It is up to Congress to change the federal laws on MJ. Allowing the States to ignore these laws sets a bad precedent. If the American people want legalization, then let the federal laws reflect it.
If people wish to show their resistance to a particular law, that is there right. However, there should be consequences including incarceration if necessary.
“I believe in the Rule of Law. You use a similar rationale that the defenders of sanctuary cities use. Or George Wallace on segregation and states rights.”
No I don’t. Fedgov has delegated power over both of the cases you mentioned. It can be found in Art I, Sec 8 and the 14th Amendment respectively. There is no Tenth Amendment violation.
In the case of pot, however, Congress is not delegated power to regulate intrastate commerce - unless you believe in a living breathing Constitution. Therefore, it is a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
So if Congress passes an anti-Second Amendment law, whose side would you take - the gun-grabbers or those who defend the Second Amendment? Simple question.
Until these laws are declared unconstitutional or invalid, they still must be enforced. You can stomp your foot and get red in the face that it is a violation of the Tenth Amendment, but that is not the current reality. Sessions is forcing Congress to deal with the reality. The states can't change the laws or ignore them without dealing with federal laws that are still in force.
So if Congress passes an anti-Second Amendment law, whose side would you take - the gun-grabbers or those who defend the Second Amendment? Simple question.
As a member of the NRA, I support the 2nd Amendment. If Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, any law, then I would have it challenged and eventually go to SCOTUS for resolution. If SCOTUS concurs with Congress, then I would proceed with supporting another amendment to the Constitution.
What would you do? Would you take up arms against the government and advocate its overthrow?
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.