Posted on 05/13/2021 6:54:09 AM PDT by NobleFree
And only the alcohol part was properly authorized by Constitutional amendment. The Controlled Substances Act is rooted in the FDR Court's "substantial effect" fabrication, which is also the rationalization for 90%+ of the leftist federal Leviathan under which we suffer.
Yeah, I feel differently. Cannabis is like #3,213 on my list.
OTR drivers are rare as hen’s teeth now due to NOT being able to pass drug tests....
And this bunch wants more drugs available.????
Why is any of that the proper business of the federal government? Do the feds impose licensing and ID requirements for the sale and purchase of the drug alcohol?
The Feds regulate alcohol very closely. Excise tax, labeling,
No federal license to sell or required ID card to purchase there.
mandating 21 as the drinking age,
Is that authorized by the Constitution?
and permitting state distribution and retailing laws to trump rules did free interstate commerce that apply to most other things.
Sorry, I can't parse this; would you please rephrase?
Yeah, I feel differently.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about taking profit opportunities away from violent criminals.
Stupid. Do they think this wins them votes?
I am for federal decriminalization. In fact I question the legitimacy of any federal law prohibiting vegetation. I am against federal regulation and oppose the formation of another federal agency. I don’t think people should abuse themselves but they shouldn’t allow themselves to be abused by government either.
And this bunch wants more drugs available.????
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to punish people for making themselves unemployable as OTR drivers.
And if trucking firms are using the standard marijuana test that detects use from as long as weeks ago, they should stop shooting themselves in the foot.
Priorities?
Agreed. Leave it to the States.
It may peel off some independent and Libertarian votes - and it gives the GOP branding as the limited-government party more credibility.
Not to mention that it's the right thing to do under our Constitution.
I think taking profit opportunities away from violent criminals is a good thing; perhaps you feel differently.
“Good. It’s a state’s rights issue. Let them decide. This isn’t in the FedGov’s swimlane.”
Agree 100%. Like it or not, pot is now firmly entrenched in our culture. That makes pot prohibition as futile and stupid as alcohol prohibition. It is past time to shift gears and go into regulatory mode.
I have long thought the very same thing. The tax schedule is completely inverted. We should be paying the most in taxes to our localities where we the people have the most control, and the very least amount to the federal government where we in our localities have virtually zero control.
That is a good way to put it. I think it all goes back to the fact that the bible has wine, but doesn’t specifically have marijuana. But such a weird difference in treatment for 2 things I would put on a similar scale.
To refrain from imposing legal penalty is not to "promote."
Nor peanut butter - not much of an argument for banning.
Until we have a national standard for what constitutes weed intoxication behind the wheel, they’re putting the cart before the horse.
I just spent 5 weeks in the Seattle area (where it is legal) and had an epiphany:
I noticed that wherever I went in public I could smell marijuana. And I’m old enough to remember when people smoked cigarettes EVERYWHERE. We’ve gone from a world where you smell cigarette smoke wherever you go to a world where you smell marijuana smoke wherever you go.
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to set a national standard for any type of intoxication (except perhaps trips that cross state borders).
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.