Posted on 12/17/2004 9:12:14 AM PST by inquest
Here's a guy that went to Federal Prison for his beliefs. Check out his sites:
http://www.ahemp.org/BEPress.html
http://www.smartvoter.org/2003/10/07/ca/state/vote/smith_b/paper3.html
http://www.smartvoter.org/2003/10/07/ca/state/vote/smith_b/paper1.html
He's saying considerably more than that. The Constitution already explicitly prohibits the federal government from taxing one state to favor another. Madison's saying that the commerce clause, as it applies to interstate commerce, was not designed to be used "for the positive purposes of the general government" - exactly the opposite of what you said at #106.
Sorry, your diatribe is not worthy of a response.
I think I agree, but I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. If you mean to say that it's nobody's business what you ingest if you're not endangering others I agree.
What can't you conduct studies the same way you would for any other substance? Obviously a double-blind study would be difficult as the smell is so distinctive - it would be tough to find an inert placebo substance, though you might be able to find a group that honestly didn't know what the real stuff smelled like so they could be more easily fooled with a substitute. Still, there are ways of conducting a study just as with any pain-relieving drug: Visual analog scales, functional scales, and the like. Weight gain is also an objective finding - take any group of people on a specific chemo drug and have half of them smoke and see what the weight gain or loss is.
What sort of scientific background do you have, BTW?
huh? Been smokin' some yourself?
Are you also one of those who doesn't believe legitimate drugs should be used to alleviate discomfort in any form? That antidepressants are a crutch? That narcotics only relieve pain and therefore dull the reality of the human condition?
Better living through chemistry (and agriculture if need be). No, I don't want my kids smoking it to get high - but if it relieves someone's discomfort, even ANECDOTALLY, while undergoing chemo, why deny them? I'm not a fan of quack remedies, but I don't see the need to ban them. And hey, if magnets really make you feel better, go for it. A lot of medication is prescribed for subjective reasons and discarded/discontinued for subjective reasons.
Actually, I don't want it legal either. I was just throwing out some things absoluting neccessary if it does become legal.
Thank you for your comments.
John
Not at all; I'm speaking directly to your point.
If you're going to compare the benefits of ending alcohol Prohibition to ending drug prohibition, then you have legalize all drugs.
Nonsense. Marijuana is recognized by many as being relatively benign in its effects on society. Not harmless, certainly, but its deleterious effects hardly justify the expenditure of finite public safety resources spent to curtail its use. From what I've seen, the probation/fine/asset seizure gravy train enjoyed by municipal administrations is the more likely motivation.
Legalizing just marijuana is equivalent to legalizing just wine during Prohibition.
Again, nonsense. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Anyone with a brain can see that marijuana is utterly different in its effects on individuals, and by extension, society, than, say, crystal meth. Not to mention their completely different chemical composition.
Drinking a half gallon of wine does not produce any substantially different result in the drinker than does drinking a 12-pack of beer, or a fifth of whiskey.
ROFLMBO...
Really? A six-pack of beer (72oz) at 4.1% alcohol contains about 3oz alcohol. A half-gallon of wine (64oz) at 7% alcohol would be 4.5oz alcohol. A fifth of whiskey (25.6oz) at 40% alcohol would be 10.24oz alcohol. I would think the physiological effects of the latter would be quite different from the former.
Oops... I just notice you said 12-pack (for some reason I'd read 6-pack). That probably puts the results into the same ballpark depending upon the exact varieties of beverages involved. Nevermind...
Well, my point was that the active ingredient in all of the beverages specified is the same. I just winged the equivalent amounts off the top of my head. Alcohol is alcohol, drunk is drunk.
Ummm... Alaska? What is there to do in Alaska when you're a teenager? I'd rather have them stoned than drunk off a cheap case of PBR. Which group would be more violent and have more of a chance driving wasted?
In this letter, Madison is defining the original intent of the commerce clause and comparing it to the way he proposed that it be used in his previous letter where he suggested using the commerce clause against foreign imports for the positive purposes of the country.
The commerce clause was to be used to prevent or correct injustice among the States themselves. Even modern day interpretations of the commerce clause honor this original intent.
You pop up into the thread like a Whack-A-Mole, make some generalized disparaging remarks that have nothing to do with the subject of the thread, then disappear when challenged.
My definition of a troll, troll.
Yes, nothing in that paragraph contradicts what I said. But it very starkly contradicts what you said at #106. There, you said that the power over interstate commerce could be used for the positive purposes of the country.
The commerce clause was to be used to prevent or correct injustice among the States themselves.
And I'm sure you understand that in the context of his letter, that means injustice committed by state governments against other states.
1-8-3?
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.