Posted on 10/16/2010 6:50:39 PM PDT by Bokababe
LOS ANGELES The Department of Justice says it intends to prosecute marijuana laws in California aggressively even if state voters approve an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot to legalize the drug.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Why? They both are on record as being against prop 19, as is the dem who is running for Attorney General (Kamalla Harris?).
If they legalized it they could tax the hell out of the users. D’s love taxing people.
I don’t have a problem with drug laws as long as they are products of the state. I don’t believe that the constitution grants the Feds authority to regulate narcotics (or much of anything else) as the commerce clause meant to simply normalize trade within the Union so states could no longer form trade cartels and have trade wars with each other.
For those who aren’t aware, the Cruikshank case (along with the slauterhouse cases) started the ball rolling toward weaking the original meaning of the commerce clause. The Grant administration had attempted to use martial law and other forms of Federal law to prosecute violators of the civil rights laws. These laws were struck down in Cruikshank. In the decision, it was suggested that the government should use the commerce clause to get what it wanted rather than the criminal code. Meanwhile, Cruikshank, who killed at least 27 negros in cold blood went free.
I believe employment-based drug testing has done more to curb illicit drug use in America than fear of criminal convictions ever did.
This is a state’s rights issue. If the people of California want to legalize marijuana, or cocaine for that matter, it should be their right to do so. States should be able to do stupid things as well as smart ones. This will be in the former category.
It’ll be interesting to see if California makes an interstate commerce issue of it when mj is legalized.
You got it, democrats and pot go together incredibly well. To support one is to support the other. To bash one is to bash the other. They take that very seriously.
“I’m curious if anyone on this forum has had any experience with the situation in the Netherlands”
I don’t know about the Netherlands, but if you do a google search on Portugal you can see their experience with legalization. They offer non-mandatory counseling/rehab instead of jail sentences. I can’t remember the details but awhile back someone posted an article about Portugal and apparently the use of drugs has not significantly increased since the new policy.
Not sure about the Netherlands, FGS, but Portugal decriminalized drugs — with some surprising success. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
“Why was a constitutional amendment needed to outlaw liquor on a national basis, yet cannibis can be outlawed nationwide with simply a statute?”
I have asked that question repeatedly in the past and one of the few answers I got was that they didn’t really need to pass a constitutional amendment, they just did to make sure the people really wanted it (or some such nonsense).
When I pointed out that the original federal drug laws were declared unconstitutional by the SC in the 1930’s and were subsequently passed again after FDR threatened to increase the number of SC justices to 15 so he could pack it with yes-men, they have no answer other than the SC never declared it unconstitutional.
But within the last few days, the Obama Admin has said that they are going to ignore State's rights if California legalizes pot AND Holder is going to file an appeal to the judge's ruling in Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In short, the Obama Admin is undermining their own Democratic supporters -- and if they go after marijuana prosecution if CA legalizes, they are going to lose them big time!
This is the place where Liberty (libertarian-leaning) Republicans can clean up if they are smart.
Yes, if they are smart. I’m not holding my breath.
Let me try to open your mind a bit: Imagine how many federal and state laws would be unnecessary and how many drug dealers would be put out of business if recreational drug use was decriminalized.
When was there a turf war over the sale of alcohol? Probably just before Prohibition was repealed.
Who benefits most from making drugs illegal?
1. Politicians who are in favor of a totalitarian government because it gives them more excuses to snoop on you and imprison you.
2. The various law enforcement agencies because they need a bigger budget to chase people who break the drug laws (plus they get to grow their little kingdoms with money taken from SUSPECTED drug activity)
3. Drug dealers. The higher the penalties and the more police enforcement, the more they can charge for their drugs.
Who benefits least? The people who have their rights invaded by the government and their safety destroyed by dealers fighting over turf.
So before you say that drug laws are necessary to help keep order to society -—— “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. “ William Pitt the Younger
In Belgium, the way it *used* to be (when I was in my teens and twenties, but I’ve never been to Belgium) it was legal to sell pot, but illegal to advertise it at the point of sale. The sign had to be some number of meters (probably ten? fifteen?) from the seller, so in the outdoor concerts the guy wearing the sign would walk that much ahead of the guy with the weed, and the sign would say something to the effect that the other guy had the stuff for sale. ;’)
Did they get that way over taxes on alcohol and tobaccy? I think not.
I remember that post. It just so happens I lived in Spain during the early 1980s when that nation decriminalized the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use.
The result was a crime wave.
In any case I think the legalization question should be left up to the states under their "policing" powers and not the federales. I just don't see how the Constitution gives them that authority. Possibly under their taxing authority they can discourage behavior not conducive to a sober society, but that may even be a stretch.
Several posts now have shown me how little I know about drug laws in Europe. I wasn’t aware the “experiment” was been so widespread. Aside from the moral issue though the question is, does the feral government have the authority under our unique Constitution to implement such laws? Or for that matter, do the current set of drug laws, along with so many others(for our own good of course), pass Constitutional muster?
“It isn’t what they do to themselves, it’s what they do to innocents.”
Quite right, I have personally been the victim of a nutjob pothead. Also have seen serious child neglect from it.
California’s prop. 19 does not set a statutory limit for being under the influence, so, you can be high as a kite and still be watching the kiddies. At least alcohol has a limit, beyond which you are considered “under the influence.” They kids can be protected as well as other motorists, etc.
“This is a states rights issue. If the people of California want to legalize marijuana, or cocaine for that matter, it should be their right to do so. States should be able to do stupid things as well as smart ones. This will be in the former category.”
Good point. But the federal regime doesn’t see it that way. The see it as interstate commerce and want to regulate it. After all, if pot was grown in Central America it should not only be tariff’d but regulated as well.
What they’re really pissed off about is that it can be grown locally. Then they would have no puppet strings to pull.
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.