Posted on 05/17/2010 9:29:02 AM PDT by OneVike
So would your answer to my question about state initiatives against Obamacare be the same as your answer regarding CA's Tenth Amendment prerogatives on marijuana, which was:
"Under the tenth amendment I would, but not until we started enforcing every other Tenth Amendment right of the state over the federal governments intrusiveness."
As for the legalization of marijuana, where in my article did I say that marijuana should not be legalized because of the federal govt? I never mentioned the federal govt, you did.
You said you would support CA's prerogative under the Tenth Amendment, but not until other violations were stopped. What would you want fedgov to do if CA passes the initiative in November... continue to enforce federal drug laws or keep hands off?
What would you want fedgov to do with states that pass anti-Obamacare legislation... enforce Obamacare until all Tenth Amendment violations are addressed, or keep hands off?
First off, Obamacare is illegal in so many ways that the states do not need to exert the 10th to ignore it.
Secondly, we are talking a bout a drug that has a lot more negatives about it then those who wish to legalize it will admit.
I also do not think we should have legalized gambling, prostitution, abortion, or any of a number of other drugs which can do permanent damage to a persons mental stability.
If however the voters pass this initiative then it is the law, and as far as I am concerned the federal government has no say in the matter, just like gambling and prostitution.
The state has marijuana legal for medicinal purposes, I disagree with it, but for now it is the law. Again, as far as I am concerned the voters spoke and the federal gov has no say in the matter.
I come from the point of view that I do not want it legalized and will do all I can in my power to prevent it from becoming law by informing the voters as to how I think they should vote.
As I said, when it comes to the tenth, we cannot pic and chose which laws we disagree with. So we should ignore federal laws that have no jurisdiction, but right now it is illegal to possess marijuana under California statutes, and that is the law I am speaking of which I do not want changed.
How much clearer can I make myself?
That said, it is my view that it is not the government’s place to tell people what they can smoke, or grow in their backyards. Period.
Yet ... in the same year that another Constitutional Amendment was passed to repeal prohibition (1938) ..... Congress passed a bill authorizing the FDA to prohibit the use of drugs without a prescription ... and the subject of such a law being unconsitutional was not an issue (after the expansion of the Federal Government during the 1930s).
Your original answer was that you would support CA's Tenth Amendment prerogative, "but not until we started enforcing every other Tenth Amendment right of the state over the federal governments intrusiveness".
The post I am replying to drops the above condition, and is now consistent with original understanding of the Tenth Amendment and Commerce Clause, IMO.
Generally speaking, with some exceptions,
Who smokes cigarettes? Joe 6 Pack. Ordinary Americans. Average folk!
Who smokes pot? Hippies, liberals, and movement and idealistic types. Artists.
That is why there will always be people who can look you straight in the face and tell you that cigarettes are dangerous, but pot is really safe. Cannabis has become such a romanticized drug that there are many who will always defend it, while routinely blasting NOT only tobacco use, but the people who smoke cigarettes.
There is a definite politcal aspect to the pro/anti pot debate.
And many of the same people who also say, we want a clean environment, avoid impurities from entering our system, keep away from harmful meats and other unsafe foods....
these same people have NO problem encouraging the use of pot.
Aside from whether government should legalize it or not, the pro pot lobby will NEVER admit that pot could possibly be dangerous. We are POSITIVE that cigarettes are harmful, but we have our doubts about marijuana. Strange thinking!
The Mexican cartels are not going to like this. Legal pot will put a real hurt on their business. Everyone in Cali will be growing pot in the back yard!
Cheers!
There is not a single piece of concrete evidence that supports this even though pot has been used for thousands of years. There is unquestionable evidence that alcohol is addictive and causes permanent brain damage, yet it is legal.
From my close experience with many in the cannabis culture your observations can be explained by this: People that are predisposed to be “ruined” are also predisposed to abuse pot. People that smoke pot and are not “ruined” will never admit that they smoke unless they know you are “cool”. Many people discriminate against smokers and intelligent ones will never admit to it.
Of course I have known many “burnouts” but they were non-performers to begin with or they seemed to perform well when school was easy. The other side of the story is the kids that were too smart to get caught. I knew 9 of 10 top kids in my graduating class smoked regularly for most of high school.
Then in my research days, a very large portion of the most brilliant people I ever met smoked. Many were engineers, physisists, mathematicians and chemists with national awards and recognition.
Now that I'm in the business world, I would say the same percentage of succesful people still smoke(and are smart enough to beat tests). The ones that admit it publicly are still nonexistent. I'm not going explain how I get them to tell me but if pot was ever legalized, you'd all be in for a heck of a shock as to how many people you know smoke.
Reminds me of the recent South Park where they legalized pot and made fried chicken illegal.
That was good, I like you cynical attitude.
It’ll catch up to you.
Oh, that's what's wrong with government...not enough money to spend. /s
It’s going to get spent anyway, so I would think any additional income would help.
Trouble is that it's already spent. They're scrambling to cover their obligations. Would ya give Bernie Madoff more money?
Then this would help cover those obligations some.
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.