Posted on 09/10/2012 11:32:30 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Edited on 09/10/2012 11:58:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Scooping up votes in swing states is how Paul Ryan serves Mitt Romney best. And what better dissatisfied liberal bloc for the Republicans to court than marijuana supporters, stunned by President Obama's total betrayal?
Hence the vice presidential candidate's stance in a college town in swinging Colorado, which will vote on legalizing marijuana at the November ballot, striking a libertarian tone to questions about marijuana enforcement. "It's up to Coloradans to decide," Ryan told Colorado Springs's KRDO. "My personal positions on this issue have been let the states decide what to do with these things.... What I've always believed is the states should decide."
Article I Section 8. First and last sentences are applicable.
“Irrelevant - the question is whether this part of the trade, whatever its size, is Constitutionally subject to federal regulation.”
Quite relevant, since we are discussing what intervention the federal government can do constitutionally. If the same people involved in intrastate cultivation are the same ones doing it outside of the state, then yes, their regulation is valid according to the constitution.
If the parties do not maintain strict separation between the two, then yes, they also fall under federal jurisdiction.
This is a restriction on the purposes of taxation, not a grant of authority to provide for the general welfare. If it were otherwise, the rest of Section 8 would be redundant.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers
Violating an explicit restriction is not "proper."
Discussion with a liar is pointless.
You are dead wrong on assertion number two in this era
Domestic marihuana production of high end sativas and indicas and hybrids outstrips Mexican in sales cash volume
Jack Herer anyone?
Irrelevant - the question is whether this part of the trade, whatever its size, is Constitutionally subject to federal regulation.
Quite relevant, since we are discussing what intervention the federal government can do constitutionally. If the same people involved in intrastate cultivation are the same ones doing it outside of the state, then yes, their regulation is valid according to the constitution.
If the parties do not maintain strict separation between the two, then yes, they also fall under federal jurisdiction.
None of that relates in any way to your irrelevant claim about what is or isn't "a significant part" of the trade.
So what about parties that maintain a strict separation - perhaps by engaging in no out-of-state trade? Do you agree that their intrastate trade is outside federal authority?
“This is a restriction on the purposes of taxation, not a grant of authority to provide for the general welfare. If it were otherwise, the rest of Section 8 would be redundant.”
Four words here, each of them refer to different things. Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. The authority of the federal government to impose regulations on imported goods stems from this clause.
Do recall back then, this was how they funded government - through imposts and excises and not through income tax.
I have been in the business for years. People need to take responsibility for their own behaviors. Treatment may not be the best goal in a number of cases.
Enabling is not making drugs available. Enabling is when we rescue over and over instead of letting people face the consequences of their actions.
Theodore Dalrymples books, Romancing the Opiates and Life on the Bottom are required reading for those interested in drugs and choices.
This is a restriction on the purposes of taxation, not a grant of authority to provide for the general welfare. If it were otherwise, the rest of Section 8 would be redundant.
Four words here, each of them refer to different things. Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises. The authority of the federal government to impose regulations on imported goods stems from this clause.
Do recall back then, this was how they funded government - through imposts and excises and not through income tax.
OK, so this is a restriction on the purposes of taxation, Duties, Imposts and Excises, not a grant of authority to provide for the general welfare. If it were otherwise, the rest of Section 8 would be redundant.
The point remains that there is no authority here for federal regulation of intrastate drug trade.
“So what about parties that maintain a strict separation - perhaps by engaging in no out-of-state trade? Do you agree that their intrastate trade is outside federal authority?”
If they are doing both intrastate and out of state trade with the same commodity they would be subject to federal authority. They’d have to confine themselves to just doing business within the state.
If it were possible to easily distinguish the overseas product from the local, they’d be ok. But with marijuana, that’s not the case.
Should doctors and nurses be able to refuse treatment of addicts?
Should doctors and nurses be able to refuse treatment to cigarette smokers? To fast food junkies? To people who engage in extreme sports? All causing self-induced diseases and injuries?
_______________
Physicans do limit their practices and addicts are often fired by their providers. Because of foolish laws, ERs cannot refuse care.
If they are doing both intrastate and out of state trade with the same commodity they would be subject to federal authority. They’d have to confine themselves to just doing business within the state.
That doesn't answer the question - it merely restates the premises of the question. Do you have an answer?
If it were possible to easily distinguish the overseas product from the local, they’d be ok. But with marijuana, that’s not the case.
So your position is that if the feds find it hard to tell something over which they have no authority from something over which they do, then they get to regulate both? Where in the Constitution does it say that?
To fall within federal jurisdiction under the original intent of the Commerce Clause they'd have to find a way to do it that was detrimental to interstate commerce.
You mean these? Seriously?
I.8.1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
I.8.18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
____________________________________________________________
If those two clauses grant authority to fedgov to control intrastate drug policy, then they also grant to fedgov the authority to control health care, education, the environment, etc.
You just pissed away the Tenth Amendment so you can have your drug war.
Nicely done!
Not to mention the Hippocratic Oath. Regardless of the fact that most med schools don't teach it anymore and it's not a legally binding oath most doctors still practice with the spirit of it in mind.
“Enabling is not making drugs available. Enabling is when we rescue over and over instead of letting people face the consequences of their actions.”
Countries with marijuana legalization do provide the drug. This is the problem. There is a disconnect between what the proponents say will happen and the reality.
With the present medical system, not only will addicts be rescued from the consequences of their decisions, their treatment will be covered and we will all be paying for it.
So yes - legalization is huge for enabling drug abuse.
“Because of foolish laws, ERs cannot refuse care.”
Ergo legalization would bring about terrible unintended consequences. Until these laws are changed, legalization is a bad idea.
“Not to mention the Hippocratic Oath. Regardless of the fact that most med schools don’t teach it anymore and it’s not a legally binding oath most doctors still practice with the spirit of it in mind.”
This is charity. We should not force medical professionals by law to provide their services without charge. If a medical professional chooses to treat someone suffering from drug addiction that is one thing. Forcing them by law to provide their services is quite another.
“If those two clauses grant authority to fedgov to control intrastate drug policy, then they also grant to fedgov the authority to control health care, education, the environment, etc.
You just pissed away the Tenth Amendment so you can have your drug war.”
How exactly does health care, and education concern the importation of goods from outside the united states?
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.