Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Next president might be gentler on pot clubs
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | May 12, 2008 | Bob Egelko

Posted on 05/12/2008 4:43:29 AM PDT by Aristotelian

Ever since California voters became the first in the nation to legalize medical marijuana in 1996, the state has faced unyielding opposition from the federal government, which insists it has the power to prohibit a drug it considers useless and dangerous.

That could all change with the next presidential election.

As the candidates prepare for a May 20 primary in Oregon, one of 12 states with a California-style law, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has become an increasingly firm advocate of ending federal intervention and letting states make their own rules when it comes to medical marijuana.

His Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, is less explicit, recently softening a pledge she made early in the campaign to halt federal raids in states with medical marijuana laws. But she has expressed none of the hostility that marked the response of her husband's administration to California's initiative, Proposition 215.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee-in-waiting, has gone back and forth on the issue - promising a medical marijuana patient at one campaign stop that seriously ill patients would never face arrest under a McCain administration, but ultimately endorsing the Bush administration's policy of federal raids and prosecutions.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: ca2008; issues; obama; obamatruthfile; pothead; potheads
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: antiRepublicrat
"Fool for Liberty is right."

I believe I said his statement was correct. It wasn't the reason given by the court in Gonzales v Raich, however.

You are correct that the Raich court relied heavily on Wickard v Filburn where it was ruled that Mr. Filburn would not have purchased wheat on the open market.

41 posted on 05/13/2008 8:27:18 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. "

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

The New Deal Commerce Clause has done exactly what Joseph Story warned against, and the result has been exactly as he predicted.

42 posted on 05/13/2008 8:42:49 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
"yes.. the law was changed through the ballot box. you just dont like the result."

I was referring to the election ballot box. California law was changed by a public referendum, not by the state legislature. I thought we were a representative republic, not a pure democracy.

The California medical marijuana law conflicts with federal law and is, therefore, in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S Constitution. Sedition isn't anarchy?

Less than 10% of Californians voted in favor of medical marijuana. Hardly representative of "the people" now is it?

43 posted on 05/13/2008 8:43:36 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
I was referring to the election ballot box. California law was changed by a public referendum, not by the state legislature. I thought we were a representative republic, not a pure democracy.

No, we are a diverse set of 50 states, some of which are purely representative republics, some of which have always had referrendums, I cant believe you are against something on the basis that the people voted for it.

The California medical marijuana law conflicts with federal law and is, therefore, in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S Constitution. Sedition isn't anarchy?

That's not the case. It is not the case that the states must consider the same things to be crimes that the feds do.

Less than 10% of Californians voted in favor of medical marijuana. Hardly representative of "the people" now is it?

Huh? Didn't you just get through saying that it came about as the result of the people voting?

Why don't you just admit that you can't stand the fact that some people are getting high and not going to jail and losing their homes and families over it?

44 posted on 05/13/2008 8:48:20 AM PDT by Ron Jeremy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman

By the way, I don’t do drugs, but you and your arguments are precisely why I am against the drug war.. it has been a vehicle for destroying all of our other rights. Here you are, arguing for the most liberal interpretation of the commerce clause, solely because it bothers you that people have a good time without you.


45 posted on 05/13/2008 8:50:13 AM PDT by Ron Jeremy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
Less than 10% of Californians voted in favor of medical marijuana. Hardly representative of "the people" now is it?

And even less voted against it. Or, are you one of those people who believes that everything should prohibited unless specifically authorized?

46 posted on 05/13/2008 8:53:47 AM PDT by Ron Jeremy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I believe Joseph Story sat on Chief Justice John Marshall's court, didn't he? Based on your quote, it appears as though he maintained a different opinion than the Chief Justice.

Doesn't make him right.

47 posted on 05/13/2008 8:55:48 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman

Give me one good reason to consider FDR’s New Deal “living document” court more authoritative on the original intent of the Commerce Clause than he is.


48 posted on 05/13/2008 8:57:23 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
I believe Joseph Story sat on Chief Justice John Marshall's court, didn't he? Based on your quote, it appears as though he maintained a different opinion than the Chief Justice.

Things might be a little clearer if Marshall's comments were taken in the context of the case they were taken from, and included the rest of that opinion. I think you're quote mining.

49 posted on 05/13/2008 9:00:15 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Give me one good reason to consider FDR’s New Deal “living document” court more authoritative on the original intent of the Commerce Clause than he is.

Because to keep people from getting stoned and having a good time?

50 posted on 05/13/2008 9:04:46 AM PDT by Ron Jeremy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
Because to keep people from getting stoned and having a good time?

I get the feeling that's supposed to be enough, but it's not working for me.

51 posted on 05/13/2008 9:11:11 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
"I cant believe you are against something on the basis that the people voted for it."

I never said it was the basis. I don't know where you got that.

The Founders were against a pure democracy and so am I, but that has nothing to do with my opinion of smoked "medical" marijuana.

"It is not the case that the states must consider the same things to be crimes that the feds do."

So a state could legalize counterfeiting (if they promised to keep the bills in the state)?

"Didn't you just get through saying that it came about as the result of the people voting?"

Yes I did. Which demonstrates what happens when the people vote directly -- a small, but motivated, group of people end up passing the laws.

52 posted on 05/13/2008 9:31:01 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
So a state could legalize counterfeiting (if they promised to keep the bills in the state)?

You don't understand even the basics of federalism. Counterfeiting is a Fed crime. The states don't have to make it a state crime. For example, Treason is a Fed crime, but is not a crime in most states. That doesn't mean that it is legal to commit Treason in such a state, just that it is a violation of Fed law, not state law. California can decriminalize marijuana, and it is not a violation of anything.. it just means its not illegal under state law anymore (but still is under fed law).

53 posted on 05/13/2008 9:35:30 AM PDT by Ron Jeremy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
"solely because it bothers you that people have a good time without you."

I thought we were discussing medical marijuana. What does "people having a good time" have to do with medical marijuana?

54 posted on 05/13/2008 9:39:24 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
I thought we were discussing medical marijuana. What does "people having a good time" have to do with medical marijuana?

Because you, in your very first post, were upset that maybe some of the people smoking it were doing it to have a good time, and not for medical reasons.

55 posted on 05/13/2008 9:52:31 AM PDT by Ron Jeremy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
The Founders were against a pure democracy and so am I,

The Founders expressed no opinion on whether or not states could use referrenda.

56 posted on 05/13/2008 9:54:07 AM PDT by Ron Jeremy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
"It is not the case that the states must consider the same things to be crimes that the feds do."

You're right. Counterfeiting was a bad example. Try child porn. OK for a state to legalize it (within state borders, of course)?

57 posted on 05/13/2008 9:59:59 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
You're right. Counterfeiting was a bad example. Try child porn. OK for a state to legalize it (within state borders, of course)?

You are missing the point.. states don't "legalize" anything. In a free society, you are free to do what you want unless the gov't has a law against it. If California says "we don't care if you smoke pot anymore", that doesn't mean that they are conflicting with the Feds.. the feds still say its illegal. If California wants to, they can say that child porn is not against the law anymore as far as California is concerned, but it will be as far as the feds are concerned.

58 posted on 05/13/2008 10:10:47 AM PDT by Ron Jeremy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy
"The Founders expressed no opinion on whether or not states could use referrenda."

Could use? I never implied their use was not allowed. When it came a desirable form of government, the Founders disdained a pure democracy.

Are you saying you prefer the people voting directly on statewide issues? Is this fair? Is this even representative?

59 posted on 05/13/2008 10:11:39 AM PDT by vincentfreeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: vincentfreeman
OK for a state to legalize it (within state borders, of course)?

Now there's a loaded question.

60 posted on 05/13/2008 10:12:22 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson