Skip to comments.
U.S. Will Enforce Marijuana Laws, (California) State Vote Aside
NY TImes ^
| 10/15/10
| Adam Nagourny
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 ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; california; commerce; commerceclause; ericholder; legalizeharddrugs; libertarians; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; menotlikehelmetlaws; prop19; statesrights; tenthamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 next last
To: Bokababe
"Obama vs California" will be a real trip!
I find this real ironic considering how the Kenyan sued AZ for enforcing his FED LAWS.
41
posted on
10/16/2010 9:55:13 PM PDT
by
Cheerio
(Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
To: Bokababe
Curious: a state with such a crusade against tobacco smoking is set to allow the smoking of marijuana — something that’s 10-20 times more potent than tobacco? California is a funny place.
42
posted on
10/16/2010 10:01:32 PM PDT
by
alancarp
(Please don't tell Obama what comes after "trillion")
To: Bokababe
in California, possession of pot,
is no longer a crime
43
posted on
10/16/2010 10:20:43 PM PDT
by
Talf
To: Bokababe
It won’t pass. Not yet, anyway...
44
posted on
10/17/2010 1:21:17 AM PDT
by
freebilly
(No wonder the left has a boner for Obama. There's CIALIS in soCIALISt....)
To: Blood of Tyrants
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 didnt really need to pass a constitutional amendment, they just did to make sure the people really wanted it (or some such nonsense).
Actually, the given reason is that an amendment is much harder to repeal and they wanted it to stick.
When I pointed out that the original federal drug laws were declared unconstitutional by the SC in the 1930s...
Cite?
To: Bokababe
They already lost this fight in 2005,
Gonzalez vs Raich.
Justice Thomas got that one right:
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.... If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined," while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).
To: Bokababe
Any bets the public smoking ban will be lifted next?,it’s why it came into play in the first place.
47
posted on
10/17/2010 4:18:30 AM PDT
by
Vaduz
To: HerrBlucher
Are you concerned that after voting to legalize marijuana, the next initiative will be to legalize cocaine? PCP? Crack? Meth?
If the issue was in TX, I’d vote no. And it wouldn’t be about threats from Obama’s Dept of Unjustice either. It would be because overall, I don’t believe legalization of this drug benefits society and our children.
Since I’m not in CA, I’ll be watching with interest, but I hope it’s voted down.
48
posted on
10/17/2010 5:13:24 AM PDT
by
prairiebreeze
(The Professional Left: Using Your Money to Promote Their Ideology Since the 1930's)
To: Cheerio
49
posted on
10/17/2010 5:24:50 AM PDT
by
Delta 21
(If you cant tell if I'm being sarcastic...maybe I'm not.)
To: Bokababe
I do not support legalization of marijuana, but I would like to see the same energy and resources applied to secure our southern border.
To: Bokababe
Big deal, they will enforce it just like the immigration laws.
51
posted on
10/17/2010 6:03:15 AM PDT
by
red tie
To: Bokababe
Don’t want marijuana legalized, but if they keep it in California then they can do it.
Though they don’t have a leg to stand on. The USSC said that wheat grown for your own consumption is interstate commerce, so I assume weed would be too.
52
posted on
10/17/2010 6:08:40 AM PDT
by
redgolum
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
To: BocoLoco
“The see it as interstate commerce and want to regulate it.”
I think the Federal government does and should have the right to ban or regulate importation. Arguably between states as well. But this is strictly intrastate commerce.
If we want to say that states should have the exclusive right over intrastate trade of guns or whether individuals have to purchase health insurance, then we need to accept that some states will use that 10th Amendment power to do things that we might not like so much.
53
posted on
10/17/2010 6:25:24 AM PDT
by
RKBA Democrat
(Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
To: Persevero
“Californias prop. 19 does not set a statutory limit for being under the influence”
That’s why they have Field Sobriety Tests.
To: RKBA Democrat
“If we want to say that states should have the exclusive right over intrastate trade of guns or whether individuals have to purchase health insurance, then we need to accept that some states will use that 10th Amendment power to do things that we might not like so much.”
Yep, that’s the sticky little problem with freedom, isn’t it? People (even people on FR who should know better) want to have it both ways when it comes to so many different issues.
To: Bokababe
Vote for it - if I were Californian, I would. Indications are that it will pass, and that the Obama DOJ will nullify it under federal preemption. I would love to see the liberals try to squirm their way out of that one. They will, of course, opt to take contradictory positions on federosauris vs California and federosaurus vs Arizona. We win again!
To: Bokababe
This is going to send shivers down the spine of the Apple Ping list, I bet.
57
posted on
10/17/2010 6:50:25 AM PDT
by
Leo Farnsworth
(I'm really not Leo Farnsworth.)
To: publiusF27
Just look up the history of drug laws in the US.
58
posted on
10/17/2010 7:14:33 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
To: Ken H
It will suppress the Bolshecrat turnout.
59
posted on
10/17/2010 7:38:37 AM PDT
by
depressed in 06
(The only thing the ZerO administration is competent at is bad ideas.)
To: Bokababe; SouthTexas; happydogx2
Here is how one group of Eureka residents handled a grow house in their
Neighborhood
60
posted on
10/17/2010 8:22:13 AM PDT
by
tubebender
(Life is short so drink the good wine first...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-82 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson