Posted on 06/06/2005 7:36:18 PM PDT by sactodan
As far as the California pot heads exporting to other states, that would come under Interstate commerce, but one could also say the same thing about foreign sources, although in those cases it's often not legal in the country of origin, and that doesn't seem to make any difference in folks exporting it to the US.
___________________________________________________________
I heard that the clinching arguement was that Dcotors might overprescribe it and therefore create a supply that could be transfered outside a state. Surely this arguement would outlaw every other prescrbed drug?
Personally I think MJ is around the same level as Tobacco and Alcohol in terms of danger tot he user but it has medical benefits. A liquid version has been "medicalised" for use by a UK company and is called Savitex. Apparently it beats Marinol hands down.
Well you should have spoken up 145 years ago when the Civil War was fought to decide how government would operate.
Too late!
Maybe then the feds will realize their time is better spent protecting our borders and chasing real terrorists.
I am too, and it seems like the best way to solve the "problem" of legalizing mary jane. If California wants to legalize it--and clearly the voters in Cali did so--then they can. If, say, Wyoming doesnt, then that should be up to the voters there.
Jeez, what's it gonna take for the 10th Amendment to actually be applied in the High court, another Civil War?
I'd like to see Thomas as Chief Justice.
I am deliberately taking this line out of your good post and in context of the MJ issue; not to throw a tankard; but to wonder.
Your line is not true. Or shall we say, it has not been true. Incest, rape, etc., are issues that take place in the privacy of the home (most often). Meth labs are operated in homes.
I have no doubts, for example, Rush took most of his painkiller drugs at home, regardless of whether they were legitimately obtained or not.
If the example holds true, then those spouses and children abused in homes should be left alone and not intervened or intruded upon. (In this case, a state is deliberating with its own laws; possibly why, for example CA Dems, continue to try to lower the "age of consent" laws in CA; dittos in re "votes").
The question then, along this line of thought is, is MJ a powerful drug to help those suffering from ailments? Or is it not, or is it rather, a placebo.
There are many points of argument with regard to MJ (in light of yesterday's SCOTUS): For starters:
1. A simple plant grown in backyard or on windowsill. Should be regulated or not. Is it considered a trifling plant or not. If it has restorative or medicinal powers, should it only be used for valid medicinal purposes -- or should its recreational use be permitted, as well? Which side of the argument are pro-legalizers arguing for or against.
#1 reminds me of the so-called "consensual sex" debate which constantly goes on concerning sex with the underaged. If the underaged gives consent to have sex with a legal adult, the liberals argue this constitutes consent and therefore overpasses the statutory rape laws.
2. Actually, the various points of discourse on the recent SCOTUS ruling might be best facilitated in threads specifically purposed with each issue as its own thread for discussion purposes, I think.
One of the other points I brought up elsewhere is the issue of Fed monies. If the woman growing pot on her windowsill (for medicinal purposes) was in any way receiving federal subsidies for say... healthcare or housing or food. If so, then she is indeed a subject to FEDERAL laws. In this case Federal Laws rules MJ to be illegal. And if so, it may have higher authority than the CA laws concerning the legitimacy of Pot.
Given what I've just written, then, if said person then visits (with MJ) to a friend or relative in another state, is that resident then also subject to federal prosecution in re "harboring" laws?
The latter is why I think the "interstate commerce" laws were possibly being deliberated at this point in time -- to lay down the rules for further debates, the more detailed debates.
I do firmly believe in the "privacy" of the home issue; am against the overreaching intrusion of government. But I recognize I don't live on an island. I share my "living quarters" with fellow citizens of a state; but also my neighbors in the other states.
Long ago when the pro-legalize pot issue came up, I thought about it quite a bit in re its effects. Take a suburban "tract home" location. Sure, "growing it in the backyard" sounds simple enough; but how simple is it when a child ingests it? Sure, the child (and family) could get hammered on grounds of "invading private property" but what if that property is held by Feds through loan?
And often, there is an "element" of people who pervade a pot house locale. Will it bring down property values? etc. etc. etc.
On one hand, this all sounds like a bunch of handwringing by a bunch of worry-worts. OTOH, it sounds like a "my pot, my life, butt out" from pro-legalizers.
But, the bottom line is, IMHO, to hammer out these issues in advance. At least, this is what should and usually does constitute a civil society. And if so hammered, facilitates the process of fewer lawyers entering the scene to hammer non-legalizers and pro-legalizers, alike.
What gets me is the fact few people seem to understand that the phrase 'among the several states' of the commerce clause means JUST THAT-
Commerce AMONG the states...like if the state of Texas trades cotton for some pineapples from the state of Hawaii.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with any physical, geographical land mass, only the political entities known as states.
Scalia: "Let's ask the 3,500,000 hippies, dope dealers, and Berkeley-educated physicians camped out in the backyard who are anxiously waiting for a go-ahead so they can shove 1,000,000 tons of legal marijuana through that loophole."
O'Connor/Thomas: "Aw, we're sure nothing like that will ever happen. See? The California Assembly promises us it won't. It'll only be used for serious illnesses like backaches. Not even a leaf or single seed of it will leave California and enter the surrounding states, and citizens of surrounding states will not come to California to be prescribed bales of marijuana they can take home in their car trunks. They know they would be in BIG TROUBLE if they did, so we're sure they won't do that."
Scalia: "You probably believe there will be no money changing hands either, no graymarket let alone a blackmarket for the stuff."
O'Connor/Thomas: "Our faith in tormented, suffering, pot-smoking mankind and in the good intentions of the California Assembly is unbounded."
Scalia: "The elected representatives of all the people, including the people who live in states surrounding California, had a different opinion about that when they passed a law to keep that loophole closed, and I cannot conclude theirs was an irrational or unreasonable opinion."
O'Connor/Thomas: "Aw, lighten up Tony, it's just two middle-aged ladies growing a little pot in a windowsill box. What harm can it cause? We're going to judicially legislate an exception just for them. It's the compassionate thing to do."
(If in the exercise of its "state's rights" California enacts legislation which has the practical effect of destroying MY state's rights, you can better believe it is a federal issue)
How does it destroy your state's rights? They can possess it in California. If they bring it to your state, then they can be prosecuted for it. There are plenty of examples of something allowed in one jurisdiction and prohibited in another. Nobody has made your innovative argument before.
I really don't know how this could possibly destroy your state's rights. In what way?
Gun grabbers use the EXACT same logic in pushing federal bans on firearms. Then again, most of the drug warriors on FR throughout the years have not been very friendly towards the 2nd Amendment.
...as long as one person's actions do no harm to another person. Such acts, causing harm to others should, and rightfull are, the purvue of governments.
I just noticed you live in Utah. According to the last government study on drug use broken down state by state, Utah has the lowest marijuana use rate in the nation with only 4% of persons twelve and older reporting past month marijuana use on the 2003 survey. You worry about California, but use their was only at 6.5% compared to the national average of 6.18% and the only reason it was higher than the national average is because people 26 and older there are a little more likely to smoke it than the national average for people in that age group. People twenty five and younger in California believe it or not smoked marijuana at a rate below the national average for people of the same ages. You should worry more about your neighbors in Colorado where 8.49% of those 12 and older report past month use, or Nevada where 7.62% report past month use. Their "drug cultures" appear to be a little more pronounced than California's and they are your neighbors. And of course you have those neighbors directly below you in Arizona who are storing tons and tons and tons of marijuana in safe houses ready to be transported to the rest of America, with more coming in from Mexico everyday.
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3State/appB.htm#tabB.3
As far as fatalities are concerned (DUI deaths and violent crime, etc.), alcohol is probably the worst drug on the face of the earth, causing more untimely deaths than all other drugs combined. Hence the hypocrisy of the Drug War.
Much better. :)
We're not. 'Nuff said.
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.