Skip to comments.
Drug laws won't be on the fall ballot, but tobacco money will
Detroit Free Press ^
| September 11, 2002
| DAWSON BELL
Posted on 09/11/2002 4:55:57 AM PDT by VA Advogado
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:12:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
A carefully planned and well-financed campaign to overhaul Michigan's drug laws crashed Tuesday, as the state Supreme Court declined to place the issue before voters in November.
Without comment, the court upheld decisions issued last week by the Court of Appeals and a state elections panel to keep the drug question off the ballot.
(Excerpt) Read more at freep.com ...
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 361-377 next last
To: WyldKard
When success is defined as preventing the people from voting, then the situation is truly desperate.
21
posted on
09/11/2002 5:21:17 AM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: ladtx
You druggies are getting tiresome.
Then why are you on Free Republic? Surely you don't want to be on a site run and owned by a "druggie", or at least Jim Robinson is a druggie according to your criteria...
22
posted on
09/11/2002 5:21:41 AM PDT
by
WyldKard
To: WyldKard
Then why are you on Free Republic? Surely you don't want to be on a site run and owned by a "druggie", or at least Jim Robinson is a druggie according to your criteria...yada,yada,yada.
23
posted on
09/11/2002 5:22:42 AM PDT
by
ladtx
To: VA Advogado
And while alcohol is legal, they used it in an illegal manner. The law works. Try having some respect for it.
So what you are saying is that making an item illegal doesn't stop illegal use of it...that it's REGULATION of a LEGAL item that prevents this sort of DUI use of it?
Sounds like you just made our case for us...
24
posted on
09/11/2002 5:23:08 AM PDT
by
WyldKard
To: VA Advogado
What do you think of decriminalisation? Not legalization. The difference is that the typical nonviolent potsmoking ditchdigger is never put in jail, but the drugs are seized and destroyed. And then the guy is fined for the bureaucracy expense. Good compromise? It would certainly reduce the bad effects of the Drug War, and cost us less in prison maintenance.
Of course, the violent ones, deport em to Cambodia.
25
posted on
09/11/2002 5:23:25 AM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
To: ladtx
I hate to tell you this, but "yadda yadda yadda", as a logical, case-building debate tactic went out with the sixth grade. Thank you for showing us all how much in common you have with the radical left-wing, closing up their ears, and screaming out so loud that they refuse to listen to the other side.
26
posted on
09/11/2002 5:24:53 AM PDT
by
WyldKard
To: VA Advogado
Technical errors happen when people are stoned lol... Good point!
To: VA Advogado
LOL Sentencing reform? Yes, instead of going to jail for drug use, the state must pay to house you in some country club 'drug treatment' program that is corrupt and doesn't work. The only thing that works is a cement cell and steel bars.
So do you think they should yank Noelle Bush out of that rehab program they have her in, and put her in a cement cell with steel bars? After all, she did commit a forgery felony to get a perscription drug, and has been caught with more drugs while in rehab. It seems to me that many drug warriors suddenly turns tail when a Bushie is involved, but who knows, maybe you are reasonable enough to be evenhanded in your madness...
28
posted on
09/11/2002 5:26:49 AM PDT
by
WyldKard
To: JoeSixPack1
Voting works too. Try having some respect for it! Nope. VA Gore insists upon trying every possible technicality to make things come out his way.
29
posted on
09/11/2002 5:26:55 AM PDT
by
steve-b
To: VA Advogado
But a technical error in drafting the language for the proposal proved fatal. In Massachusetts they ignore the will of the citizens in much simpler way - they do not vote on the constitutional proposals if they do not feel like doing it. See - Sen. Tom Birmingham: 'Leader' or 'Dictator'?
30
posted on
09/11/2002 5:28:07 AM PDT
by
A. Pole
To: ladtx
You druggies are getting tiresome. One-line replies are getting tiresome.
To: ladtx
yada,yada,yada. Are your replies always this insightful?
32
posted on
09/11/2002 5:30:01 AM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: WyldKard
closing up their ears, and screaming out so loud that they refuse to listen to the other side.I've listened to the other side. I enjoy reading these drug threads, so far no one has convinced me yet that there is an upside to what you advocate.
33
posted on
09/11/2002 5:31:51 AM PDT
by
ladtx
To: A. Pole
In Massachusetts, it doesn't matter what we vote anyway. The will of the people means squat up here.
To: ladtx
I enjoy reading these drug threads, so far no one has convinced me yet that there is an upside to what you advocate.
Well, let me ask you this: WOuld you be in favor of ending the Federal WoD, which depends on a "New Deal" misinterpretation of the Constitution, and instead allow individual states to address the matter on their own, as per the 10th Amendment? As was how things USED to be done before the 1930's?
35
posted on
09/11/2002 5:35:25 AM PDT
by
WyldKard
To: ladtx
I've listened to the other side. I enjoy reading these drug threads, so far no one has convinced me yet that there is an upside to what you advocate.
You don't think there's an upside to reigning in a ridiculous New Deal-era interpretation of the Commerce Clause that gives the Federal government the "power" to declare any noun illegal?
To: Bill D. Berger
Why can't the legislature simply change the sentencing laws? I don't understand why there needs to be a constitutional amendment in order to implement a new drug policy. Doesn't seem appropriate to have a constitution dealing with such details.
37
posted on
09/11/2002 5:38:49 AM PDT
by
Sandy
To: VA Advogado
Amendment IX, U.S. Constitution:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, U.S. Constitution:
"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: "
Our federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction to enact prohibitive drug laws.
Why do you think it took a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol from January 1919 to December 1933?
Prohibiting the consumption of alcohol by citizens using "legislation" was unconstitutional.
The exact same logic applies to any other chemical substance.
Also, the 9th amendment is part of the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Privileges.
38
posted on
09/11/2002 5:39:07 AM PDT
by
tahiti
To: VA Advogado
Good news indeed! Sorry potheads. Better luck next time. LOL!!
To: VA Advogado
It'd be really horrible if the drug war ended and you had to look for another job besides dealing VA.
40
posted on
09/11/2002 5:43:13 AM PDT
by
weikel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 361-377 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson