Posted on 09/06/2022 6:59:39 AM PDT by whyilovetexas111
If weed fails in the Senate, and no one hears, does it make any noise? On July 21, 2022, the three most ambitious U.S. senators ever to pay attention to cannabis sheepishly launched federal cannabis legislation into the future, with the introduction of the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act.
The landmark announcement drew surprisingly little fanfare. Senators Schumer, Wyden, and Booker seemed resigned. The cannabis cognoscenti immediately denied the infeasibility of the timing and the impossibility of getting to 60 votes in a bitterly divided U.S. Senate.
Then, the seas started to change in Washington. After months of gridlock, Congress passed, and the President signed, four major laws – including Democratic shibboleths like gun control, prescription drug reform, and environmental policy. Instantly, the priority level for cannabis reform rocketed toward the top.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Look, I smoked a lot of pot in the distant past. Tried some of the new stuff and barely made it home. Almost couldn’t drive. And yes I’ve done acid too so I know what I’m talking about. This stuff is going to cause major societal problems, especially the unintended consequences. Not sure what the answer is. I guess we shall see.
I don’t want marijuana to be federally legalized. I want it to be recognized that the federal government never had any authority to make it illegal in the first place.
So I assumed your name refers to “refrigeration mechanic”. Now I’m not so sure. ;^)
Your assumption is correct, both of them! I stay away from all that stuff now. Just a beer or two now and then.
Preaching to the choir
If you think that post was actually responsive and made sense, perhaps the “once or twice” did more damage than you think.
This is a serious discussion. If you want to be juvenile / infantile with your comments go somewhere else - like a Leftist forum.
Very good point.
But the TAXES on alcohol were a significant part of the Federal government’s revenue.
So the introduction of a personal income TAX was needed to close the revenue gap. I think that was 1913.
Take a good look at all the Constitutional amendments that passed in the early 20th century. And also consider the Federal Reserve was created during this period.
The progressives have been at work for over 100 years.
I agree it’s about the scope. Frankly, I am a little amazed by the focus on pot. I have had many discussions over the years with libertarians, and they are often focused on pot above seemingly all else. Like you wrote, government—the federal government nonetheless—is regulating virtually every aspect of life these days. There are far, far more liberties at stake here than pot.
Young women are going to line up to vote Democrat over abortion (which wasn’t even made illegal by SCOTUS) and Libertarians wouldn’t support Trump last election because he wasn’t doing enough to legalize pot. I mean, talk about cutting your own throat.
Well pot is the “easy” one. It was the last of the pre-designer drugs to be made illegal, it’s the one that the most people think is kind of silly to have illegal, the one that the highest percentage of the population has done in spite of it being illegal. The one with the most support to legalize.
Constitution gives fed the right to regulate interstate commerce, so they have the right to regulate pot commerce that crosses state lines. However, Justice Thomas was following the constitution when he said fed had no right to regulate pot within a state. I think it was Gonzales v. Raich in 2005, but Justice Thomas was in the minority unfortunately. Blame Wickard v. Filburn.
Bullshit. I haven’t voted for a rat in 30+ years. Agreeing with legalizing cannabis isn’t a symptom of anything except being pro legalizing cannabis. Eliminating dumb laws that interferes unnecessarily with using, growing or holding a bloody plant is a conservative notion. Prohibition made criminals rich for no good reason. Grow up
Addictive substances or activities that are illegal develop a culture around them that includes altruism among the participants. This is the same phenomena as with a cult or religion with high entry costs. A cult aspect is less likely to occur if a substance is not illegal. Additionally, data about ill effects is easier to capture and the use of the substance or the illegal activity is more apparent and subject to ridicule.
Read the Thomas dissent in U.S. v Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
That’s the decision I was trying to remember. Thomas’s dissent was in accord with the constitution. The majority ruling was not. Wickard v. Filburn should be overturned. There is no way that growing crops on your own land for your own use falls into interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause is used as a pretext for the fed to be involved in virtually anything.
Wickard and commerce power was one serious error. Another was US v Butler, where the Court determined Congress has the power to tax for the general welfare, which swalliws up the design that Congress can tax only for the reasons listed.
Both of there extraordinary errors took place while Roosevelt and the neo-Wilsonians were looking to emulate German National Socialism and Russian Soviet Communism. Remember - Roosevelt was trying to pack the Court because it was finding the New Deal went beyond what the Constitution permitted.
Until Dobbs, the Court has been transfixed with President, rather than fidelity to the Constitution. At one time my tag line was, “If the Constitution is a living document, it has a malignancy uner its penumbra which needs surgical removal.” Wickard and US v Butler need the scalpel, if not from the Court then by a Convention of the States.
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.