Posted on 07/23/2010 9:48:58 AM PDT by Mojave
You certainly summed up the situation perfectly.
Because like, it’s your body to (psssspppst) do with as you want to. Like abortion.
By the way, the ACLU is silent on the new 2014 to report our BMI mumbo jumbo to Big Prez.
And don’t get any ideas about selling a kidney. That’s prohibited too.
OK then . . let’s just legalize crack and heroin too
...”has a disproportionate impact on communities of color,” the ACLU said in a press release.”
Sounds like the ACLU spoke stupidly. Are we now going to legalize murder because its enforcement has a disproportionate impact on blacks and hispanics?
Is there any way to delete your post before the ACLU sees it?
Legalization in California is not such a bad thing. It’ll send all the junkies to California and out of our states.
Question: Are there federal drug laws? Is California trying to usurp the federal governments authority?
In addition, there is never a crime or moral evil that the ACLU does not support-and, at taxpayer expense when they are awarded attorney fees.
Or at least criminalize the use of the drugs nicotine caffeine and alcohol.
The same is true of Arizona enforcing illegal immigration law.
The other states’ legislators that are saying they provide much needed labor and revenue can exploit them for votes, revenue, and labor. What’s the problem?
And I am sure none of this is going to make it over state lines.
Are we now going to legalize murder because its enforcement has a disproportionate impact on blacks and hispanics?
Is there any way to delete your post before the ACLU sees it?
No, but it got me to thinking that whites can claim disproportionate impact relative to asians and start demanding special treatment from Government.
So the ACLU admits that the reason more blacks and hispanics are incarcerated is that there is more crime among blacks and hispanics? Brilliant!
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
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.
snip
The majority’s rewriting of the Commerce Clause seems to be rooted in the belief that, unless the Commerce Clause covers the entire web of human activity, Congress will be left powerless to regulate the national economy effectively. Ante, at 15—16; Lopez, 514 U.S., at 573—574 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The interconnectedness of economic activity is not a modern phenomenon unfamiliar to the Framers. Id., at 590—593 (Thomas, J., concurring); Letter from J. Madison to S. Roane (Sept. 2, 1819), in 3 The Founders’ Constitution 259—260 (P. Kurland & R. Lerner eds. 1987). Moreover, the Framers understood what the majority does not appear to fully appreciate: There is a danger to concentrating too much, as well as too little, power in the Federal Government. This Court has carefully avoided stripping Congress of its ability to regulate interstate commerce, but it has casually allowed the Federal Government to strip States of their ability to regulate intrastate commerce–not to mention a host of local activities, like mere drug possession, that are not commercial.
One searches the Court’s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States. Yet this Court knows that “ ‘[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers.’ ” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 155 (1992) (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991)). That is why today’s decision will add no measure of stability to our Commerce Clause jurisprudence: This Court is willing neither to enforce limits on federal power, nor to declare the Tenth Amendment a dead letter. If stability is possible, it is only by discarding the stand-alone substantial effects test and revisiting our definition of “Commerce among the several States.” Congress may regulate interstate commerce–not things that affect it, even when summed together, unless truly “necessary and proper” to regulating interstate commerce.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html
And what will the TSA personnel at California airports do with all the ounces that they "confiscate" at check in?
Proposition 19 provides for sales.
They will give it to the poor of course or sell it in TSA shops and donate the proceeds to illegals (they will need the money once this income from illegal drugs dries up).
So the California Law tracks citizen’s purchases and limits them? Requires them to show valid driver’s license or state issued id with proof of residence?
Does the law also require proof that the drugs were grown in California?
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.