Posted on 04/07/2015 9:34:24 AM PDT by grundle
But that could only be true for things not able to be produced in the same state. Otherwise all production impacts interstate commerce.
There has to be something else there and reading the whole case will probably ruin what’s left of the day.
That's exactly what FDR wanted, and what he got after his court-packing threat.
The reason people want medical POT is simply that they want to smoke it.
I was recently interviewed by both the local TV station and newspaper - none of what I said about Marinol was mentioned in print or the news segment. Simply stated, smokers all stated they want immediate relief from smoking and did not want the same relief from a the pill form over the drug counter.
If Obama really wanted to help those in pain, legalize Marinol for prescription in lieu of Vicodin, Tylenol-3, etc.
Since it's slow onset, its dose can't be titrated to the minimum effective level - and patients with nauseau can't keep it down.
If Obama really wanted to help those in pain, legalize Marinol for prescription
It's already legal for prescription.
Someday the useful idiots that voted for this clown just might wake up.
Bingo!
And who might the "overwrought stoner" be?
Why it's the OP himself - The Gooch.
From his "about" page:
grundle Since Dec 29, 2001
I’m a Ron Paul supporter who was born in 1971 and lives in Pittsburgh, PA.
And of course, scratch a Paul-Bot and you'll find a frustrated Hippie - Right, Gooch?
(What's that smell?)
Probably.
But not even Calif would do that.
But it's interesting to see how many Drug Warriors on this forum support Filburn and the dismantling of the Constitution.
So may folks are outcome-based when looking at the law.
As long as it leads to an outcome they support, the construct and restrictions be damned.
Don’t be dissin’ the “New Media”, yo.
When they steal stuff and add a few buzzwords..
why.. that’s CITIZEN JOURNALISNS...
And stuff. New Media.
You can't support the federal War on Drugs and not support the dismantling of the Constitution. What's interesting is that they're under the delusion that they're American conservatives.
I think you are very much in error when you assert there are limits to California's debauchery.
But it's interesting to see how many Drug Warriors on this forum support Filburn and the dismantling of the Constitution.
I do not regard Filburn as a legitimate authorization for drug interdiction. I regard the mandate to defend the nation as the source for this authority.
That's a very broad interpretation. In fact, I'm sure a bunch of ACLU lawyers and the Obama admin could come up with all sorts of things they could apply that legal "logic" to.
Firearms. All environmental regulation, current and imagined. The fight against "Christian Zealotry" etc.
Heroin and crack, yes. But not nuclear weapons and biological agents.
The author has never used marijuana.
Referring to oneself in he third person is often a sign of impending mental collapse, frequently triggered by drug use.
Bob Dole is a stoner?
That's a very broad interpretation. In fact, I'm sure a bunch of ACLU lawyers and the Obama admin could come up with all sorts of things they could apply that legal "logic" to.
Firearms. All environmental regulation, current and imagined. The fight against "Christian Zealotry" etc.
Expansive readings of the Constitution always provide more grist for the liberals' mill than for the conservatives' - alleged conservatives who yield that much ground to liberals for the sake of their pet cause are fools at best.
I'll go by the letter of the law, thank you.
And, I'll oppose any and every person who does not, with all my mortal strength. In every arena.
Every time.
Including you, here.
YOU seek an expansive reading of the Constitution if you believe it says ANYTHING on the Federal Regulation of Drugs when Interstate Commerce is not plausibly involved.
Therefore you're a New Deal Filburn supporter and enemy of liberty and the Constitution.
You just would have a different result from the same powers.
Absent Filburn, what is the Article that would authorize the Federal Government to outlaw any drug?
“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” - G. K. Chesterton
It is a broad interpretation to regard dangerous chemicals being sneaked across our border and which kill Americans as a proper usage of the Defense mandate?
If you apply this exact same rule to Anthrax, or Sarin, do you still consider it too broad?
Firearms. All environmental regulation, current and imagined. The fight against "Christian Zealotry" etc.
And this is just nonsense, not even worthy of rebuttal.
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.