Posted on 01/03/2006 1:00:01 PM PST by SmithL
Providence, R.I. (AP) --
Rhode Island on Tuesday became the 11th state to legalize medical marijuana and the first since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that patients who use the drug can still be prosecuted under federal law.
The House overrode a veto by Gov. Don Carcieri, 59-13, allowing people with illnesses such as cancer and AIDS to grow up to 12 marijuana plants or buy 2.5 ounces of marijuana to relieve their symptoms. Those who do are required to register with the state and get an identification card.
Federal law prohibits any use of marijuana, but Maine, Vermont, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington allow it to be grown and used for medicinal purposes.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
You act as though the people don't already have the power to tell Congress what to regulate and what not to regulate.
The 'peoples power' to regulate is restrained by the Constitution, as is Congress. 'We the people' cannot regulate away our own rights to life, liberty, or property..
Seems to me the will of the people became known when the AWB was not extended. Congress listened then, didn't they?
Congress is supposed to legislate using Constitutional restraint first, the will of the people next.
Your problem is that your position on drugs is in the minority, and you're looking for a backdoor way to impose your will on the majority.
Simply not true. An unconstitutional 'will of the majority' insists on a prohibitionary 'war'. We oppose that unconstitutional war..
If Congress decides to constitutionally regulate commerce, I believe they should have the power to enforce those regulations. Otherwise, why give them the power to begin with?
Exactly the point paulsen, -- 'we the people' never gave Congress the "power to begin with", -- the power to wage a war on drugs.
You look for loopholes (medical marijuana is not commercial if it's free, so it can't be regulated), you look for activist judges to vote your way, you support the medical marijuana states flaunting federal law, anything but going directly to the people.
Direct 'peoples democracies' do not work. Constitutional republics do; - learn to live in one, paulsen..
If you don't like the laws Congress is writing, you and your friends have the opportunity every two years to elect those who agree with your position.
Try that instead.
We do.. Unfortunately you democratic 'will of the majority' people have taken over both parties in our political system, and are ignoring our Constitution.
Can anything be done about that paulsen?
I believe that, in general, Congress has taken on way more than than they should when it comes to regulating day-to-day activities. They overreached with VAWA and the Gun Free Schools Act and were slapped down by the USSC for that.
Personally, I'm disappointed that the public didn't slap them down, and that's the crux of the problem here. The people need to put the brakes on Congress, not the courts.
ALL officials [and 'the people'] are sworn to support & defend the Constitution. -- So of course we all need to put the brakes on.
The people are letting Congress run roughshod over them. We're allowing this to go on, then complain that the representatives WE elected are out of control.
So what do we do about it? No, we don't throw them out in the next election. Silly person.
We look for activist judges (over which we have NO control) to interpret the U.S. Constitution OUR way. Who says we can't learn from the liberals!
Who's the silly person? Our two party system is not working to "throw them out"..
Yet you, -- and millions like you, - argue that Congress has any power the "will of the people" authorize, then you turnabout to say "We're allowing this to go on, then complain that the representatives WE elected are out of control."
Your sarcasm, and your WOD duplicity, -- is the silly position paulsen.
Is there anything to stop this activity from being interstate or commerce? Is there something in the nature of the activity that precludes this?
No? Then the drug could leave the property and not only become commerce but interstate commerce, correct? Can we identify the drug as having traveled interstate? We can't?
Geez. Then how do you know, how can you tell me with such great assurance, that it will never leave the property? How would you even know if it did?
Maybe you're suggesting that it is only illegal as it crosses state lines? Right? On either side, it's as legal as milk.
Well, you can take your "wink wink, nudge nudge" "as it's crossing" argument and present that at your next Anarchy Forever meeting and you guys can all have a good laugh. In the meantime, us adults will be arresting people for possession.
That is also in the Controlled Substances Act:
"c) Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules. In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 202 [21 USCS Section 812(b)], the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:
(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this title.
Now, doesn't that help explain everything?
If you persist in making Constitutionally irrefutable comments, bobby will be reduced to pretending you aren't here; -- he will ignore you..
Its a pitiful way to 'debate', but paulsen has it perfected..
Well, I'll give them that (even though the governor vetoed it). Only Hawaii and now Rhode Island passed medical marijuana through the legislature. The other 11? states did so via a voter initiative.
"I would agree if shown exactly how."
The little plane would crash into the big plane, having a very substantial effect on all those involved. How many times would that have to happen before even yo would concede it has an overall substantial effect on interstate aviation and commerce?
Geez, you need thousands dead as proof? You can't envision how this would effect interstate commerce? Lucky for us Congress did.
Congress was legislating intrastate activities 20 years before FDR. Need a link to the Shrevepost Rate Cases?
Wait a minute, milk can't be legal. I can't prove that the milk from my cow does not cross a border. Send in the FEDS.
You want me to believe the little plane would never fly into controlled airspace? Really? You promise?
Well, if you promise, then I can't wait to board a commercial airliner, knowing that I have the assurance of mysterio that some yahoo won't decide to exercise his God-given constitutional right to fly wherever the f$#% he wants.
So, you're saying we have to "catch 'em in the act"? That's so juvenile, I'm speechless.
Sure, leave the actual substance of my post unanswered. I'll rephrase: The Constitution does not allow Congress to seize control over anything just by declaring it "regulated."
The Court reminded Congress of that fact when they struck down VAWA and the Gun Free Schools Act.
Maybe they should remind Congress whenever else appropriate, eh?
The alternative is that the individual could only be arrested as he's crosssing state lines -- on either side he's a free man.
No, the alternative is: the feds arrest people who send or receive drugs across state lines regardless of whether THEY themselves are crossing state lines. Here's another alternative: let states that don't allow drugs arrest their own citizens who possess drugs.
But my favorite alternative, the one you unsuccessfully attempt to argue out of all possibility: NO ONE gets arrested (i.e., kidnapped) just for possessing drugs.
See, that was simple.
Baloney. We have the power of the vote. As Bill Cosby once told his son, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out".
First of all, who's "we"? Second of all, I won't waste my time debunking junior-high Civics 101, except to say that tyranny of the majority does not belong in a free republic. Finally, your tasteless mention of Bill Cosby's murdered son only illustrates my point: the "taking out" of Ennis Cosby was neither the will of Bill or Ennis Cosby, but rather imposed on them by someone else. Just like the WOD is imposed on people that never voted for it.
Is the interstate commerce of milk prohibited?
Were you under the impression that Congress can simply start regulating some purely intrastate activity which has no relationship to any any interstate commerce they're regulating?
Well, no wonder you're upset! I would be, too.
Okay, here I go, taking you at face value again!
Followers of these threads are familiar with the legal evolution of the Commerce clause. We know that the Founders did not want the various States discriminating against the persons and enterprises of the other States by means of invidious regulation.
Thus, in a marijuana case where Iowa is attempting to exclude Illinois weed from being sold, processed or transported through Iowa, I would support the Feds' case against Iowa.
Apart from that, the notion that the government has the legitimate power to forbid possession of mere 'substances' is too 20th Century totalitarian to be seriously regarded by anyone with a historical perspective.
As Orwell made clear, lying is the best strategy for success in a Party State. Indeed, it is the only way forward.
But as Solzhenitsyn witnessed, such success leads only to eventual disgrace and death, anyways.
However evil the results of drug abuse are, they pale into insignificance in the face of the horrors perpetrated in the name of 'justice' by the modern progressive State and its odious cadres of human predators, scavengers, and parasites.
They can all go to Hell, in my opinion. ;^)
"Would" crash, or "might" crash? Ya gotta make sure your strawman is actually made out of straw.
Paulsen selectively retorts:
Congress was legislating intrastate activities 20 years before FDR.
Notice how bobbie dodges the true issue of Congressional usurpation's, and defends them by in effect claiming they were started in a more conservative era 20 years before.
Paulsen is no conservative, and virtually every post he makes gives away his democratic/socialist 'will of the majority' position.
If it's moving interstate, they sure can. The Commerce Clause gives them that power.
"No, the alternative is: the feds arrest people who send or receive drugs across state lines regardless of whether THEY themselves are crossing state lines."
Drugs are fungible. How would they know? As I said, they'd have to catch them in the act. That's stupid.
"Here's another alternative: let states that don't allow drugs arrest their own citizens who possess drugs."
99% of the time, that's exactly what happens. Only 1% of drug arrests are federal.
"except to say that tyranny of the majority does not belong in a free republic"
Ah. So all those medical marijuana laws that were passed by a voter initiative should be null and void? Well then, we agree on something after all.
"Finally, your tasteless mention of Bill Cosby's murdered son"
It was in his comedy routine well before his son was murdered.
Not on all issues, but definitely regarding drugs. Some may pick and choose based on prejudice. Heroic small farmer growing wheat to feed his family good, long-haired hippie sucking on a burning plant bad. Others might see it from a law enforcement perspective. "Cops protect us," and laws must be obeyed and enforced no matter how wrong they may be. Then there's the puritanical, pleasure-denial streak among other types of conservatives. To WODies, the end justifies any means, and FDR's usurpations are merely one of the means.
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.