Sheriffs Try to Overturn Legalization of Pot in Colorado

Time ^ | March 05, 2015 | Tessa Berenson

[DiogenesLamp]

They most certainly had the right for the first 150 years.

No they didn't. That's another deceitful Libertarian talking point which I have destroyed too many times to count.

It is a deliberate effort to mislead the public about the fact that drugs were mostly unknown in the early days of the Republic, and not till they became widespread after the Civil War did anyone realize just how dangerous they were.

Laws to regulate them came shortly thereafter.

[ConservingFreedom]

And now we've had and are having votes on pot.

the mostly Democrat kooks in Colorado

Don't forget red state Alaska.

A State law may not override a Federal law.

And a valid federal law must not exceed Constitutional bounds on federal authority - which authority does not extend to intrastate growing, selling, buying, or using of pot.

[DiogenesLamp]

And of course you are wrong about this, but still trying to mislead everyone into going along with your drug fantasy dreams.

[DiogenesLamp]

You can keep saying that, but it won't make it true. If we didn't have a Democrat nut-job choom smoker in the White House, I dare say the Federal response to this effort to overrule Federal law would have been swift and sure, but as usual, Idiot Obama can be counted on to always do the wrong and stupid thing.

He's on your side you know.

[Responsibility2nd]

The sheriffs have a right to sue. Why should they be forced to quit their jobs over bad policy they aren’t responsible for?

Its the same as a county clerk or judge being forced to issue marriage licenses to queers.

[tacticalogic]

You mean naturally occurring substances like Uranium, Anthrax, Chlorine gas, and other dangers things? Why that would be the defense clause which is an umbrella authorization for anything which threatens the lives of citizens.

Statements like that are a public embarrassment to this site.

[muir_redwoods]

First, I’m not a kook. Redoubling your efforts in the face of an unremitting history of failure is the nature of a kook. Second, do you honestly believe drug laws prevent any appreciable number of users from using drugs? Without question their primary effect of such laws is to enrich dealers. Drinkers drank during prohibition and the law simply made the Mob rich. Drug users will continue to use drugs and our billions spent on enforcement will simply enrich the dealers and strengthen the cartels. Third, yes, let stupid users of heroin and crack meet their chosen fate; I no longer wish to spend billions to keep the fools from the consequences of their choices.

[MaxMax]

You seem to have Conservatives confused with Libertarians who support everything
under the sun including Homosexuals, Pedophilia, Murder, Drugs, and complete lawlessness.

But you go ahead and blame the boogieman, Conservatives.

A stoned society is not productive and is your perversion of freedom.

[Responsibility2nd]

Wrong. You nor anyone has standing to tell another what they can put in their own body.

______________________________________

How strange it is that this argument is the same used by pro-aborts.

/s

Face it. Pro-dopers are equal to pro-abortion advocates. Their blathering are immoral.

[eyeamok]

I am well aware of “soldiers disease”, you should keep reading.

[ConservingFreedom]

The plain language of the Constitution gives the federal government no authority over intrastate growing, selling, buying, or using of pot; ignoring the words and instead prattling about alleged "intent" is how liberals pervert the Constitution.

And of course you are wrong about this

And of course you will make no actual argument in support of your claim.

[MaxMax]

I responded to the wrong post. Sorry about that.

[ConservingFreedom]

And a valid federal law must not exceed Constitutional bounds on federal authority - which authority does not extend to intrastate growing, selling, buying, or using of pot.

You can keep saying that, but it won't make it true.

What makes it true is Article I Section 8, which grants federal authority only over commerce among the several states, and the Tenth Amendment, which reiterates that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.

[DiogenesLamp]

Second, do you honestly believe drug laws prevent any appreciable number of users from using drugs?

I absolutely do. Do you have any idea of what happens when you *DON'T* have laws against drugs? This is what happens.

Now you can have a theory, but this was a real world experiment, and it shows that drug usage will continue to grow if the substances are legal and available.

Without question their primary effect of such laws is to enrich dealers.

And if it were legal, the secondary effect would still be to enrich drug dealers, but the primary effect would be to kill citizens. Take a look at this chart again. What it represents, among other things, is an enrichment of Dealers. Those are sales numbers.

Drug users will continue to use drugs and our billions spent on enforcement will simply enrich the dealers and strengthen the cartels.

Which is far less of a problem than would be the mass death caused by legalized drugs. The Fire is not an improvement over the frying pan.

Third, yes, let stupid users of heroin and crack meet their chosen fate; I no longer wish to spend billions to keep the fools from the consequences of their choices.

Allow the stuff to be legal, and the "fools" receiving the "consequences of their choices" will be your children and grandchildren. Drugs tamper with the mind in a way to make it seem like taking them is a good idea. Usage of them grows in exactly the same manner as an infectious disease, and the best solution is to prevent infection in the first place.

[winodog]

I thought the conversation was about weed.

[DiogenesLamp]

Statements like that are a public embarrassment to this site.

People pushing the legalization of drugs while claiming to be "Conservative" are an embarrassment to this site.

[Up Yours Marxists]

“Wrong. You nor anyone has standing to tell another what they can put in their own body. The law has standing to hold them accountable for their actions while under the influence but choosing one plant over another is not the role of a civil government.”

So, what you are saying is second hand smoke from joints affecting smokers’ children by making them high as a kite is none of our concern???

Where do we draw the line? Opium is a plant. Coca is a plant. Most of the “high as a kite” drugs come from “plants”. It’s like homosexual marriage. “Let them do it”. Then the pedophiles want marriage. Then polygamists. Then it rolls down hill from there.

Laws have to draw the line somewhere. Where’s that line and who draws it???

[tacticalogic]

People pushing the legalization of drugs while claiming to be "Conservative" are an embarrassment to this site.

Then you're no better than they are.

[MileHi]

You are reading into it things which you WANT in there, but which are not actually in there.

Now that's funny right there. Your obsession is causing you to project now. You ought to get some help. You are becoming hysterical.

[TianaHighrider]

I totally agree. When you let ‘big brother’ tell you what you can and cannot put in your body (alcohol, sugar, fat, smoking) that is the real ‘gateway problem’.

The vice-police help ‘shame’ and crucify those who don't fall into the ‘condoned behaviors’. Not to mention now saying (like we all knew would happen) that ‘now’ that the government owns our bodies (ObamaCare) anyone who smokes, drinks, fat, etc. are a like a thief to your neighbor's pocketbook. Of course, this doesn't apply to those who are illegal aliens or participate in PC OK behaviors (sleeping w/####, ‘active’ lifestyles like skateboarding, violent protests).

Those of you who want to put down my ‘Conservatism’ because I KNOW our Founding Fathers never meant for the government to forbid them to drink, smoke, or what have you, I challenge you to show me where any of them thought the government should outlaw those things. And no, they are not the same thing as gay marriage. Gay marriage is totally new ‘idea’ which would have never seen the light of day. It is something that never happened in history. But now that we given up what a Free Society is even based upon (self-rule and family centered) and now we are influenced by fixed statistics, polls, focus-groups, and the whims of a government bureaucrat.