Posted on 08/28/2006 7:29:35 AM PDT by tang0r
Buckley's a self-professed Libertarian. Of course he agrees.
No, the standard is "substantially affect", not "might possibly affect".
"If I am a doctor prescribing pot to my patients, or a dope dealer selling my homegrown weed to all my friends and and relatives, then the fed has NO BUSINESS sticking their filthy noses into it."
Normally, no. But since Congress has chosen to regulate the interstate commerce of marijuana, and since your local activities (allowed nationwide, of course) would have a substantial effect on those regulations, Congress may indeed "stick their filthy noses into it".
Pure crap. Cong. is permitted to regulate ISC, not anything that might affect ISC. The standard is "substantially affect?" is it?? No, the standard is found in the US CONS, giving cong. the power to reg. ISC, not reg. something that might sub. aff. isc. Again, EVERY "local activities allowed nationwide" could affect ISC, therefore the G. has the authority regulate EVERYTHING in your book. NO. Cong. has the authority to reg ISC, not things that may affect, ISC, growing and selling my own dope is NOT ISC, no matter how much liberals and totalitarians would like to pretend otherwise.
There's no mention of ISC in the USC.
The only power government has is to make it's citizens criminals.
What exactly do you consider that statement to be? I consider that statment as saying..."your stupid".
You're mistaken. A statement about something you've posted is not a statement about you ... you are not your posts.
I do not think that:
1) legalizing drugs will eliminate the black market
Legalizing the drug alcohol decimated the black market in that drug.
nor will it put production of drugs into the hands of more responsible producers.
Legalizing the drug alcohol put production of that drug into the hands of more responsible producers.
2)The taxes generated by the sale of these substances will not offset the destruction wraught by the users/abusers on their families and on society as a whole.
They're wreaking destruction already ... and much of it is because of drug criminalization and the consequent high prices and motivation to steal.
3) Will not reduce crime, due to lower prices, but actually increase crime due to increased availablilty.
I have never read of a crime committed while under the influence of the depressant heroin ... but have often read of crimes committed by heroin addicts looking for the money for their next fix.
The only support you've ever provided for this claim is a quotation that on investigation proves to be no more than the opinion of either the reformers or the author, with no supporting evidence for that opinion whatever its source.
I'll believe that snippet means that a FEDERAL prohibitory statute annuls STATE laws when you provide the context of the snippet.
But I won't hold my breath waiting.
That's lazy. Normally you'd cite some sources.
FWIW, I was told a long time ago that if we had the equivalent of the Breathalizer test for marihooch, it would already be legal. The problem is, that we have no way to control millions of stoned kids (and adults) from getting behind the wheel.
That's because folks under the influence of pot have a time/distance disconnect.
True to a certain point. Today's pot is very high in THC content compared to the pot of my youth. I smoked pot a few times when I was a ute, and it took an entire joint to feel anything. My brother still has a puff now and again, and he has told me that one toke gets him high.
Actually, theft of beer from stores is very common in the seedier sections of town.
Tell that to the folks killed in traffic collisions by stoned drivers.
The query I have about this whole drug issue is this:
Why was a constitutional amendment, the 18th, necessary to outlaw liquor when drugs were outlawed nationwide by a simple statute?
Not so; we still have roadside sobriety tests (walking a line, etc.).
Sir Gawain's post was in rebuttal to the ridiculous argument that marijuana is more harmful to the user than alcohol. As far as indirect harm to third parties, alcohol is #1 by a wide margin (not to mention the immorality of punishing ALL users of a substance for what SOME users do).
A lot of them are doing that with weed being illegal. Your point is?
Pot is like any other substance. Some will be badly affected by it. And others will be minimally affected by it. I used the stuff a bit in college, and I had to stop using it. I knew people who could do their calculus and accounting homework while high. Me, I couldn't figure out which end of the book I was supposed to open. Likewise, I know people who are regular pot smokers as adults and lead productive lives, and I know some who are waste products. I have a feeling, however, that they would be waste products without the pot.
Booze is the same way. Some people drink their entire lives without becoming alcoholics. Others fall right into the pit, and there are a whole range of stories in-between.
The point is, I don't see a compelling interest in keeping pot criminalized, and doing such is counterproductive - it causes a lot of harm. Colorado decriminalized pot years ago - possession is a summary offense - and I think that is a sane approach.
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.