Posted on 09/29/2009 4:02:50 PM PDT by Bokababe
....This article is not another polemic about why it should or shouldn't be (legalized). Today, in any case, the pertinent question is whether it already has been -- at least on a local-option basis. We're referring to a cultural phenomenon that has been evolving for the past 15 years, topped off by a crucial policy reversal that was quietly instituted by President Barack Obama in February....
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
Pot’s legal in Southern Oregon. My neighbor has a commercial pot farm, everyone knows it, and the local District Attorney has announced he doesn’t want to be brought any pot cases.
I suppose the Feds could get involved, but so far, we have a new cash crop.
Lived in 3 college towns in the past 2 years — Madison WI, Richmond VA and now Austin TX.
Can’t say as anyone in any of those towns gets busted for weed unless they’re foolish enough to deal in front of a cop, or unless they want them off of the streets for other reasons.
I think that this war against weed was lost when the Indians first smoked it, centuries before white settlers got here. Do I think that people should smoke weed? No, but they shouldn’t gamble, drink to excess, smoke tobacco, etc etc. And, those are all legal.
How is it that something the Creator gave us can lead to all this nonsense.
“Any of you people who think marijuana shouldn’t be legalized, well you’re all f*cked”
It ought to be completely legal.
Just as long as you assure me there is no connection between marijuana and mental illness.
Just as long as you show there is not cognitive degeneration.
Until then, it shouldn’t be legalized.
As for your comment, well it speaks volumes about you.
I think fraud had something to do with it here in Michigan.
Its an issue that has come again and again over the years and sometimes the numbers in favor have risen and sometimes they’ve fallen. In this last election it suddenly passed by wide margins in all 83 counties.
It would be one thing if the numbers had steadily grown in all counties over the years but all 83 at once? I’m not buying it.
Can’t say as anyone in any of those towns gets busted for weed unless they’re foolish enough to deal in front of a cop, or unless they want them off of the streets for other reasons.
Actually, one of the biggest prohibitions to many people smoking pot, even here in CA, is employer drug testing.
Someone can have a recommendation from a doctor to use marijuana for medical purposes, but that doesn't mean that an employer has to hire them and the employer can even fire them for such use.
There was a landmark case last year -- "Gary Ross vs RagingWire Telecommunications" that said that the State's medical marijuana laws, while protecting a person from State criminal prosecution, offered this person no additional rights under the State's employment laws.
As long as marijuana remains a Federal crime, employers have a right to fire employees who smoke marijuana even if California decides to legalize marijuana outright.
I put it in quotes because it was from Cheech and Chong many years ago. It is not my opinion, but at the time, it was pretty funny. Sorry if you were offended.
Everyone knows it eh? Does he have a problem keeping “poachers” off his land?
The do gooders again. It’s like those wascally guns bent on crime that go walking around in Chicago. Oh wait, the guns don’t walk. People bent on crime carrying them do.
Maybe someday, sanity will return and only certain uses of items will be banned rather than the items themselves.
bookmark
It’s OK, I didn’t get the cultural reference. I did wonder why it was in quotes.
Here’s one thing I have an issue with:
“the U.S. Justice Department treated state medical marijuana laws as nullities. Such laws were contradicted and therefore preempted by federal drug laws, the Justice Department reasoned, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that position in 2005.”
The constitution says that all powers not enumerated to the Federal government belong to either the states, or to the people. Where in the constitution does it enumerate that the Feds have the authority to regulate what plants a person consumes? Until someone can show me that clause, then I view the issue as something that can, at most, be legislated on the state and local level. Even then, I think it’s a bit of an overreach for the government to tell someone what they can or can’t ingest.
Now, since drugs obviously can have associated safety or health issues, then I guess governments can appeal to that to regulate their responsible use. The current federal position on marijuana though, is pretty much that there can’t ever be any responsible use of it at all, which I think is ludicrous given that at least 10% of the population continues to use it and their heads haven’t exploded yet.
Everybody knows their rights, real or perceived, but no one thinks about their responsibilities. If you want to legalize drugs, fine. As long as you sign a waiver and wear an ID bracelet that mandates you to receive no public money of any kind and allows the police to use whatever force necessary when you pose a danger to yourself or others when whacked out.
Somehow the same people that want legal drugs also want to suck on the public teat.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Justice Thomas, dissenting in Raich
___________________________________
Justice Scalia put himself four-square on the side of the Wickard New Deal Commerce Clause:
"...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."
Justice Scalia, concurring in Raich
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.