Posted on 12/17/2004 9:12:14 AM PST by inquest
Get rid of the nanny state first, then I'm willing to discuss the legalization of drugs.
They tried that in Alaska, actually. Up to 4 ounces, in your home only, was legal for adults.
Then the University of Alaska did a study in 1988 and found that twice as many Alaskan teens were using pot as the lower 48. The parents went ape, pushed for and passed a public referendum in 1990, and made pot illegal again.
Teen use dropped to that of the rest of the country. Maybe you don't care. I do.
In my post #108, I listed some functions of the nanny state: The Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the National Endowment of the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, for starters.
If people are willing to rid thenselves of these agencies, then perhaps they're willing to take on personal responsibility. As I said, then we can talk about drugs.
You legalize drugs first, you're just going to add people to the welfare and healthcare systems and we'll never get rid of those federal agencies.
Wickard is an insult to personal property or any reasonable view of the power of government to regulate trade. Frankly, I think the Constitution should be amended to take the power to regulate intrastate commerce away from Congress. I understand the reason for its original inclusion, but it has been of virtually no benefit and an unimaginably large source of mischief.
Glaring omissions from your nanny-state list: the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, i.e. the "Drug Czar".
Neither of which have any constitutional basis for their continued existence, just like the others you mention.
Let me guess. You think those agencies should be the first to go.
How was the study performed? Many people who use illegal substances aren't likely to report them to someone conducting a survey.
interesing analysis. I'm no lawyer, but I'd say the Supreme Court was wrong in the Wickard case. How can the Federal Government tell people what they can and can't grow on their OWN land?!?!
How can the Federal government tell citizens what they put in their OWN bodies??!!?!?!
That's teh direction I would approach this case from.
"In theory, our areas of agreement should have included, among other things: eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation, eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax."
---
GOOD IDEAS!!!!!!
This is true, because , as you stated, some states have already decriminalized it. IMO, prohibition on MJ doesn't work , in the same way that it did not work for alcohol.
i go with legalize.
moderation moderation and dont drive.
has anyone ever seen the government ,either, produced or sanctioned movie REEFER MADNESS? what a hoot.
and there is a group of record albums called
them dirty blues, one of them is tunes with all drug references with some mighty big names in big band music singing them.
FWIU, the Supreme Court is very loath to reverse itself, but is less loath to issue rulings which change the effect of earlier readings but are nonetheless consistent with them.
For example, a compelling part of the argument in Filburn was that by growing his own wheat, the farmer was depriving a would-be seller of a buyer. Even if the farmer would not have personally bought wheat from out of state, his failure to buy the wheat would have shifted (by the amount of wheat in question) the supply/demand balance within his state and thus affected interstate commerce.
The argument doesn't work in the pot case, however, because there is no legal interstate market. Although it is certainly possible that growing pot within the state for immediate in-state consumption might cause people who might otherwise have done so to stop buying out-of-state pot, it would be hard to argue that their failure to buy out of state pot was somehow a bad thing.
if you link this subject of medicinal maryjane as an evil soros plot and therefore not worthy to persue, then by that logic the DUmmies ,Cheney/haliburton ,rants could be said to have merit?
it's late and i may have missed your point.
and or i'm not making mine clear.
sorry, I meant to say I would not approach it from the Filburn angle. (although I agree with your analysis)
I would approach it from the angle that the United States was the first country to take away power from the King (divine right of king = the king has his power from god by law). The US eliminated the middle man (the king) and gave each person the divine right of kings power for his own property. Thus - every man a king. Remarkable.
William Pitt said in a speech to the British Parliment (explaining this new American idea):
"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!"
If every man is a king on his own property (as enshrined by the Constitution) then it follows that the man may grow what he will and injest what he will with no one to answer to but whom he recieves his 'divine right from' - ostensibly God.
Now, I don't know how to frame that legally, but thats what I meant. :)
I am about as right-wing a Christian as you can get, and I am emphatically for allowing states to determine whether or not to legalize the prescribing of marijuana for medical use.
I had cancer a few years ago, and while I didn't require any special pain/nausia medication, I understand that some people would benefit greatly from MJ.
Those who are against MJ for medical purposes don't understand how powerful physician-prescribed medicines are....
The federal government will cite Filburn. Anyone supporting California must therefore argue that (1) Filburn is wrong, or (2) Filburn does not apply. One may make other arguments as well, but if Filburn can be used to bind this case it will.
"We live in the most medically advanced nation in world history, and you're taking us back to Clan of the Cave Bear where we're chewing on roots and dancing naked in the moonlight."
"The history of the world is not intelligible apart from a Government of the World" W. V. Humboldt
For history's sake remember the founding fathers grew this plant on their estates. Of what clan are you, the fight club? Much medicine's source is plant life, as well as our diet. What plant shall we war against next when we are finished eradicating this wonder from the face of Earth? What gives this government, or any government the power to eradicate a gift from God? Is it the power of the increasingly inept oligarchy of Doctors and corporate chemists which you desire to maintain?
You can't see the absurdity of your question which has nothing to do witn the matter at hand? It is a perfect reason why I don't argue with WOD drones anymore.
That doesn't deserve and answer.
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.