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

Skip to comments.

ACLU Backs Prop. 19, The Pot Initiative
LA WEekly ^ | Jul. 22 2010 | J. Patrick Coolican

Posted on 07/23/2010 9:48:58 AM PDT by Mojave

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
The ACLU never misses a chance to play the race card in its quest to damage our society.
1 posted on 07/23/2010 9:48:59 AM PDT by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Mojave

You certainly summed up the situation perfectly.


2 posted on 07/23/2010 9:51:06 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

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.


3 posted on 07/23/2010 9:52:16 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

OK then . . let’s just legalize crack and heroin too


4 posted on 07/23/2010 9:52:45 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

...”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?


5 posted on 07/23/2010 9:54:28 AM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw
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?

6 posted on 07/23/2010 9:56:33 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mojave
In Nov ‘08 Gay State voters voted to make possession of pot a civil infraction punishable by a $100 fine.Recently there was a piece on a Boston TV station indicating that only a very small percentage of the fines assessed (less than 10%) were paid *and* that the law,as passed by the voters,provides *no* penalty/legal sanction of *any* sort for those who fail to pay the fine.
7 posted on 07/23/2010 9:57:09 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (''I don't regret setting bombs,I feel we didn't do enough.'' ->Bill Ayers,Hussein's mentor,9/11/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

Legalization in California is not such a bad thing. It’ll send all the junkies to California and out of our states.


8 posted on 07/23/2010 9:57:20 AM PDT by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

Question: Are there federal drug laws? Is California trying to usurp the federal governments authority?


9 posted on 07/23/2010 9:58:05 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (There is neither honesty, manhood nor good fellowship in thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

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.


10 posted on 07/23/2010 9:58:20 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat
OK then . . let’s just legalize crack and heroin too

Or at least criminalize the use of the drugs nicotine caffeine and alcohol.

11 posted on 07/23/2010 10:01:16 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

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?


12 posted on 07/23/2010 10:01:34 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (I wish our president loved the US military as much as he loves Paul McCartney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

And I am sure none of this is going to make it over state lines.


13 posted on 07/23/2010 10:01:34 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

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.


14 posted on 07/23/2010 10:02:09 AM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: equalitybeforethelaw; Mojave

So the ACLU admits that the reason more blacks and hispanics are incarcerated is that there is more crime among blacks and hispanics? Brilliant!


15 posted on 07/23/2010 10:04:19 AM PDT by CholeraJoe (I saw Ellen Page bend a Paris street into a cube and it looked as real as the moon landing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dila813

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


16 posted on 07/23/2010 10:05:40 AM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: dila813
And I am sure none of this is going to make it over state lines.

And what will the TSA personnel at California airports do with all the ounces that they "confiscate" at check in?

17 posted on 07/23/2010 10:07:01 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: KDD
"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold..."

Proposition 19 provides for sales.

18 posted on 07/23/2010 10:09:21 AM PDT by Mojave (Ignorant and stoned - Obama's natural constituency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mojave

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).


19 posted on 07/23/2010 10:11:23 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KDD

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?


20 posted on 07/23/2010 10:15:23 AM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-73 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