Posted on 01/03/2006 1:00:01 PM PST by SmithL
Providence, R.I. (AP) --
Rhode Island on Tuesday became the 11th state to legalize medical marijuana and the first since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that patients who use the drug can still be prosecuted under federal law.
The House overrode a veto by Gov. Don Carcieri, 59-13, allowing people with illnesses such as cancer and AIDS to grow up to 12 marijuana plants or buy 2.5 ounces of marijuana to relieve their symptoms. Those who do are required to register with the state and get an identification card.
Federal law prohibits any use of marijuana, but Maine, Vermont, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington allow it to be grown and used for medicinal purposes.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Who believes that it is a good thing for the fed.s to stomp on the rights of the citizens under the blatant guise of lies about marijuana being - the devil weed and that it causes rapes, theft and murder? The best thing the fed.s could do is come clean and admit that the whole war against marijuana was a big mistake that got out of hand the day that Harry Anslinger began his campaign of lies.
When we're debating the over-reach of the federal government it is unfair to bring the Constitution into the debate. Please refrain from doing that in the future.
If that weren't so true - I'd be laughing my @$$ off.
Is it my imagination or is there a growing momentum of (cannabis advocates/constitutionally conscious persons) speaking out?
Clearly there's a growing movement of people who want to see some or all drugs legalized, and it's driven by a combination of ideologues who believe the WOD is unconstitutional and the pro-pot NORML people who just really want to get stoned without worrying about the cops kicking in the door.
It won't go anywhere, though. I don't think legalization will ever happen. It might happen that pot is decriminalized through drug courts (that seems to be a trend in some states) where it's essentially just a fine like drunk in public.
But I don't see the legislatures in most states getting behind legalization.
Thats Democracy for yah. Terminally Ill cancer patients finally get a little relaxation before they pass away.
Well, one little private airplane innocently flying around in one little state hardly has a substantial effect on the domestic airline industry either. What about all the flights that don't even go to that state!
So, whaddya think? Should we allow that guy to fly wherever?
If that were truly the case, those ideologues would be calling for the legalization of ALL drugs -- they're not. Nine times out of ten, the poster will admit they wish to keep the hard drugs illegal.
How is the war on marijuana unconstitutional but the war on heroin and cocaine constitutional? They don't know and they don't care. They just want their precious marijuana legalized (and socially acceptable) so they don't have to grow up.
In my opinion.
Are they really calling for legalization, or just an end to federal appropriation of state police powers under the guise of "regulating commerce"?
How is the war on marijuana unconstitutional but the war on heroin and cocaine constitutional?
When did it become a given that wanting heroin and cocaine illegal mean that you must automatically want it done exactly the way it's being done now?
He is, just ask him. Blackbird.
They're calling for the legalization of marijuana. They're not calling for an end to federal appropriation of state police powers to prohibit marijuana under the guise of "regulating commerce".
The point being that whatever they're doing, it's restricted to marijuana.
Very few posters argue for making the entire drug legalization issue a state-level decision. And for good reason.
What percentage of the American public would vote for a constitutional amendment, similar in wording to Section 2 of the 21st amendment, removing the power from the federal government and placing the drug legalization decision exclusively with the states (as we did with alcohol)? All drugs, not just marijuana.
I'd bet good money you couldn't get more than 10% of the public to go along (the 7% on drugs, plus an additional 3%).
Not all activist judges are liberal.
Are they really calling for legalization, or just an end to federal appropriation of state police powers under the guise of "regulating commerce"?
It's a combination of many factors. Some are calling for outright legalization of all drugs (and here I admit to being one of the few "ideologues"). Others take a Federalism approach and are calling for the FedGov to stay away from drugs. Yet others take a dealer vs. user approach, calling for lighter sanctions against users. Still others may wish to keep hard drugs illegal, but realize there are more pressing issues than potheads.
In any case, everyone with a brain realizes that marijuana is minimally harmful compared to harder drugs, and anyone with a conscience finally realizes there are too many people locked in cages for drug-related non-offenses in general. Whether only marijuana or all drugs, and regardless of ideologues or NORML, changes in drug policy may simply result from more and more people out there realizing that something is amiss.
I don't think that's right. Certainly there is a percentage, maybe a majority, who just want their precious. But the ideologues will argue that it should all be legalized, any ansillary crime that may be committed as a result of drug use should be punished, and those who are able to smoke their crack rock and leave everyone else alone should be left alone themselves.
It's the NORML folks who just want their precious. That's why you don't see the ideologues jumping too hard on the decriminalization or the medical-use bandwagon. They may argue those cases, but they're not pushing those cases. It's the pot-heads who don't care if they have to back-door it, just as long as it's done.
"Should he be able to fly in his state wherever and whenever he wants?"
Yes.
I'd bet good money you couldn't get more than 10% of the public to go along (the 7% on drugs, plus an additional 3%).
I'd bet good money you'd get more people to go along with that than a constitutional amendment that gives Congress the authority to control anything they find "substantially affects" interstate commerce, with the meaning of "substantially affects" being totally subjective and left to the discretion of Congress.
This issue with Federalism is not drugs, it is interstate commerce. The New Deal Commerce Clause is at the root of the uncontrollable growth of the federal government. The drug issue is the boogie man that is supposed to make everyone afraid to question it.
LOL! ;-D
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.