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 ...
It, indeed, is a terrible idea. And it is explicitly against Scripture:
“You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.” (Matthew 4:7).
But through daily submission to God and placing ourselves in His hands, we do receive directions for right actions as well as comfort, no matter how terrible circumstances may be.
All summed up in the section of the beautiful and encompassing Lord’s Prayer that reads:
“...And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil...
Saying the Lord’s Prayer several times a day, in submission and privacy and kneeling when possible, does provide direction, inner (and often outer) strength, peace with ourselves, and daily direction on right actions - when it is requested.
That's not what I said. Not at all.
In that post I said the California medical marijuana program needs to be re-evaluated because of the abuses by the pot clubs, doctors, and patients.
If the people are smoking pot "to have a good time" and not for medical reasons, that's against federal law and state law.
The war on pot has failed. Defund it and end it.
Huh? You just said it again. You are upset that its not going to just medical patients..but also people who are having a good time.
I understand. I'm simply going with the terminology -- you know, "Legalize Marijuana!", "Legalize Abortion!" -- things like that. No need to get picky.
"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."
And would you believe them if they said it should be legal because it would stay within their state? That it would not affect other states? Must Congress trust a state to keep child porn from entering the interstate market?
Well, as Justice Scalia referenced in Gonzales v Raich:
“To impose on [Congress] the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other governments, which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the constitution.â€
Unless, of course, you're saying that this must be allowed even though we know the activity (whatever it is) will not and cannot be confined to the state. I do not believe the Founders intended this.
I never said it was going to people who are having a good time. Never. That's your phrase and your conclusion.
I said the California medical marijuana program is being abused by the "patients" (among others). I went no farther than that. I have no desire to turn this into a recreational marijuana thread. I'd prefer to stay on topic.
Welcome back, your dreams were your ticket out.
Welcome back to that same old place that you laughed about.
Well the names have all changed since you hung around,
But those dreams have remained and they’re turned around.
Yeah we tease him a lot cause we’ve got him on the spot,
Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back, welcome back.
so what is this abuse that u are upset about if not people having a good time?
You're actually arguing a case based on the premise that the citizens of one or more of these United States would approve of the legalization of child pornography, and that we should consider the appropriate powers of the federal government to be based on that premise.
"To bring medical marijuana retailers into compliance, the board updated its guidelines to allow them to obtain a seller's permit. Previously, the state banned people selling illegal items from getting permits."
The program is a joke and makes a mockery of the law.
So you're saying that Congress' commerce clause powers should extend to state activity only for the "really bad" things that might affect other states.
How would you word that in the U.S. Constitution?
Gibbons v Ogden was about actual navigation between states, giving a clear and immediate interstate commerce hook. Why do I think it couldn't? Because I didn't see the word "affect" in the Constitution. I saw commerce among the states, not commerce affecting states, not commerce within states, but commerce among states. Given the absence of those words, "among" clearly means between. If I talk about conversation among a group of people, it does not include what people are thinking, just what they're saying to others.
Yes, I know that. And it totally upsets you that its being abused, because it upsets you that people are getting high. Why you keep denying that specifically I have no idea.
He didn't say that at all. With all due respect, I think you are sorely lacking in the basics of how Federalism works. You asked a "what if" question about state law. Tacticalogic responded to you, and now you are somehow shifting that over to his views of Federal Law and the Commerce Clause. Please bone up a little on your reading and then come back to us.
No, you're saying that unless Congress' Commerce Clause power covers anything that you can imagine might have some affect on another state, the states will be be able to do "really bad" things.
Stress was right there in the proposition for everybody to read. We know what we were voting for.
Yes the cops are happy not to waste time arresting stoners anymore. I know a couple.
They would much rather spend their time arresting violent tweakers and drunks.
Crime is down here, same as almost everywhere else. Not that you’d know it to watch the news.
Shifting? The entire thread concerns Congress using the power of the Commerce Clause to write federal law regulating in-state medical marijuana use. Does it not? Did I miss something?
I'm not "shifting" anything. I simply wanted to know how he thought Congress could regulate some in-state activity (because it's "bad") and not others.
Doesn't matter. Chief Justice (and Founding Father) John Marshall did.
Yes, you did miss something. You missed the basic concept of how the Constitution works. The Feds can write all the laws that they want, and they can enforce them all they want. The states are not obligated to pass the same laws that the feds do. There are a whole host of fed laws that are not also state laws. The state of California has changed its laws regarding marijuana, you keep bringing up bogus arguments about how that is unconstitutional.
He was also a strong federalist, opposed by the likes of Madison and Jefferson.
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.