A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana and allow states to legislate its use, pro-marijuana groups said Wednesday.Posted on 06/22/2011 5:21:01 PM PDT by hamboy
A group of US representatives plan to introduce legislation that will legalize marijuana and allow states to legislate its use, pro-marijuana groups said Wednesday.
The legislation would limit the federal government's role in marijuana enforcement to cross-border or inter-state smuggling, and allow people to legally grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal.
The bill, which is expected to be introduced on Thursday by Republican Representative Ron Paul and Democratic Representative Barney Frank, would be the first ever legislation designed to end the federal ban on marijuana.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
I sure didn't propose banning guns ~ and the whole conditional situation was that you would have all the dope you could eat, use as a suppository, smoke, or rub on your skin. The point was to give me, the private individual, the RIGHT to call you out for offense!
TENTH AMENDMENT BAYBEEEE TENTH AMENDMENT!!!!!!!
You guys have been telling us for ages that dopers are inoffensive ~ should be no risk in that, right?
My name is Leonard. I’ve been here almost as long as you. I have no idea who the “you guys” are that you mention.
The fact remains that when you reduce supply while demand is up you are going to create new markets. Are you denying that?
Did you know that when demand goes down you frequently find self-destructive behavior on the part of the suppliers.
MJ is not in short supply in this country. The price, in fact, is down!
That's just it. It's not a different topic. Both limit another's freedoms based upon false moral superiority.
Doesn't limit my freedom in the least to have and use guns.
Apparently you are afraid of guns.
Not me. I was a Gunner's Mate when I was in the service. For me, the bigger the better... :)
It makes LeftyLibtards afraid, so they seek to limit our freedoms based upon their moral superiority because they, like you, blame the gun for the crime instead of the person holding it.
Having others use (not abuse) drugs (such as alcohol) must make you afraid, which is why you support limiting everyone's freedom to consume them.
Can you see the parallels? Both you and the LeftyLibTards have no problems with laws limiting others' freedoms because you blame the object for the ills instead of the person.
Which is not unlike the TSA searching for the tools of terrorists instead of the terrorists, themselves. Since they are looking for the inanimate object instead of the person using it, the only way they can find the tools is to infringe on the freedoms of everyone passing through the checkpoint --old men, old women, young children, military personnel, etc.
Sounds pretty silly to me, but then I blame the person not the tool.
“Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.”
This is the nail in the coffin of any limit on the Federal government. Based on this standard Scalia would say that regulation of nonactivity can be regulated if it substantially affects interstate commerce, or even if those nonactivities do not substantially affect it. That Scalia said it makes it worse.
I hold out hope for Thomas to have a better opinion, but Thomas seldom convinces the other Justices with his opinion, he asks a few if any questions, then writes the most brilliant legal analysis. It pains me that he is so often alone in his thinking on these matters. We need more like Justice Thomas.
If I were a Presidential candidate I would say directly...
“DARN RIGHT I have a litmus test! “What do you think of the written opinions of Justice Thomas?”. Their nomination to the SCOTUS would be dependent upon that answer.”
You want to advance the cause of the 10th amendment, that's alright by me. Privatize as much as possible ~ right down to how I deal with people who are a nuisance to me.
What you can't do is demand complete liberty to turn yourself into a total a--hole through the use of hard narcotics and then turn around and demand the protection of the law to prevent your critics from disposing of you.
I’ve never heard this take before. We’re awash with pot, prices are down and there’s not enough work for drug dealers so they’ve begun to turn on themselves? Do you have a source?
Yes, you are. You are a libertarian. This is a conservative website, not a Republican one. You and your ilk don't belong here.
Obviously TRUE conservatives require no support from those of us who do not agree with you 100%.
Again, no we don't. Republicans will pick their candidate with the help of many voices. The job of this particular website is to find the best CONSERVATIVE candidate, not the mostly conservative candidate who leans libertarian on your pet issue.
I’ll just consider myself an independent who supports the constitution, personal responsibility and liberty.
You basically just recited the official Libertarian recruiting pitch. Ron Paul couldn't have said it better himself.
This is a point I always have trouble with. Non-alcoholics can stop at one drink. Or two. Or even three. For most non-college aged adults the purpose of drinking is not "to get drunk." NOBODY smokes pot because they like the taste. Every single person who smokes is ALWAYS trying to get at least a little stoned. Period.
Personally I do neither, because I no longer seek to alter my consciousness artificially. I think the world would be a better place if nobody drank or used drugs. But I have tried both substances and I recognize the dishonesty of trying to equate the two. Putting cultural traditions aside, the psychology of smoking pot, legally or illegally, is quite different from drinking alcohol.
They are not nice people and they don't cooperatively share the loss of income ~ they go out and kill each other. It's like a gasoline war where the better established and better financed gas stations cut their price for the purpose of taking business away from the smaller guys ~ and thereby bankrupting them.
None of them want to go all the way to the part about "the people" having those unnamed rights because that would entail the loss of their government protection for their habits.
In that case conservatives are a very small minority.
“We’re working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption,..”
“In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc.,”
I don’t see anything on the main page about finding the best conservative candidate. What I do see I agree with and support and have for ten years now.
“What they do have is a substantially reduced market for those drugs in the United States.”
I don’t think I disagree that bad guys (gangs, mobs, cartels) are violently competitive. But here you’re saying that there is a reduced market for pot in the US? Please, source this for me. I have always believed the opposite. Is this just an opinion of yours or do you have stats?
If I’m understanding you, there are few buyers and many sellers. So in order to reduce the number of sellers, gangs in Mexico are killing each other. I’m with you 100% on this last part, but the stats I’d like to see are related to the first part, the reduced market argument. I’ve never heard that before.
This is fine as long as you recognize that this sort of law will allow people to deal with you in any way they see fit.
As I said, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
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.