Marijuana backers courting conservatives

AP via SFGate ^ | 10/16/12 | KRISTEN WYATT, Associated Press

[SmithL]

DENVER (AP) — It's not all hippies backing November's marijuana legalization votes in Colorado, Oregon and Washington.

Appealing to Western individualism and a mistrust of federal government, activists have lined up some prominent conservatives, from one-time presidential hopefuls Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul to Republican-turned-Libertarian presidential candidate and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.

"This is truly a nonpartisan issue," said Mark Slaugh, a volunteer for the Colorado initiative who is based in Colorado Springs, which has more Republicans than anywhere else in the state.

"States' rights! States' rights!" Slaugh cried as he handed out flyers about the state's pot measure outside a rally last month by Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. Quite a few passing Republicans took the flyer.

"It's fiscally prudent. It would be taxed, regulated, monitored. It makes a lot of sense to Republicans," he said.

Most Republicans still oppose legalization.

[Fledermaus]

Yes

[Fledermaus]

It’s not too restrictive for me! ;-)

[longtermmemmory]

On the market drugs that have identical effect as pot:

•Marinol (dronabinol) - Classified as Schedule III

•Cesamet (nabilone) - Classified as Schedule II

•Sativex (nabiximols)

This makes dosage scientific instead of the pot head excuses via vapor and puffery.

Also there are drugs which have seizures as a side effect that REQUIRE doctors to report.

it is very simple, no pot user in any shape or form should be driving at any time. period.

[Molon Labbie]

The War on Drugs is one of the most wasteful and Constitutionally challenging endeavors ever attempted by all levels of government.

[Manic_Episode]

I’m against marijuana unless it’s for medicinal or recreational use only.

[John S Mosby]

States Rights— my middle name. My other points stem partly from a lifetime of pharmacochemical education, and experience.

I commend all here to the later posting from Longtermmemory on the “medicinal” use argument for legalization. There is a responsibility on dosing for demonstrable pharmacologic usage, as opposed to addictive behaviour as an “illness” that can only be treated by the “cause”.

Taxation sources and statist advocates who use this to push legalization, give justification and edification of existing mega-corps and the currently hidden future execs of “mari-corps” to be And the State still grows. No taxation— just legalize it. And stop the false “medical” use crap.

[Ken H]

States Rights— my middle name.

So you'll support CO or WA if they vote to legalize, and fedgov should butt out. Correct?

[familyop]

Favored constituents of both political parties, you should not have given our industries away to foreign enemies or destroyed so many American families with your vices. You don’t yet know how much you needed our support or how much you should have avoided causing us to disrespect you.

No vote. No sale.

[John S Mosby]

If they use “medical” as a reason, the fed gov CANNOT “butt out”...there being an FDA and all.

Getting it there by “taxing it to control it” — nope.

If they just legalized it then it is a test case, and we know how that would go— there having been a War Between the States over another “state’s rights” economic question.

Yep, ready for a blast on that last one.

[John S Mosby]

Oh yeah, and in obamacare they have the tools to eliminate the RKBA 2nd Amendment. They already ask in clinical settings
“are there any firearms in your home”. You know, to protect the kids (pediatricians feel they need to take this up) but also adult internists nosying around.

Short leap to “diagnosis” to prohibit ownership and/ or “database” cross check with the follow up of totalitarian seizure.

Nice set up.

[Ken H]

If they use “medical” as a reason, the fed gov CANNOT “butt out”...there being an FDA and all.

The FDA depends on the Wickard Commerce Clause for its existence. I thought your middle name was 'States Rights'.

Getting it there by “taxing it to control it” — nope.

So you would piss on the Tenth Amendment because you don't like the policy. Furthermore, you've just supported the Wickard Commerce Clause.

You need a new middle name.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

Remember, there are ALREADY drugs with the requisite ingredients

Really? Name them.

•Marinol (dronabinol) - Classified as Schedule III

•Cesamet (nabilone) - Classified as Schedule II

Those have only THC and none of the other active ingredients in pot.

•Sativex (nabiximols)

"The FDA has not approved Sativex® and the product is not available in the United States" - http://www.gwpharm.com/sativex-faqs.aspx

until they include automatic license suspension to those using “medical marajuana” this is still just a pothead issue.

Many medications warn 'do not drive after using' - how many of them lead to automatic license suspension?

Also there are drugs which have seizures as a side effect that REQUIRE doctors to report.

Does that reporting result in automatic license suspension? Does pot cause seizures?

it is very simple, no pot user in any shape or form should be driving at any time. period.

Nobody should drive while under the influence - but current law does not (with the possible exception of seizures) require automatic license suspension for any use of an impairing medicine.

[John S Mosby]

Clause schmause. The point is the FDA will NOT stay out of it. If you believe the clause gives FDA it’s existence— think again— numerous examples that it doesn’t. FDA can do what it wants— especially under obamacare.

My people already fought, died for and lost the State’s Rights war. Because States Rights was defeated is the unfortunate reality of why the Feds will not stay out of this,and in so many areas— as totalitarianism is wont to do.

Been there, done that-lost our holdings— and have a much better understanding of what State’s Rights means, such that my middle name ain’t never going to be changed. Deo Vindice.

[Ken H]

Clause schmause.

Read and learn, Mr. Wickard...

____________________________________________________________

FDA USING ‘INTERSTATE COMMERCE’ TO REGULATE YOUR STEM CELLS AS A ‘DRUG

Since the stem cells are, as it says in FDA’s statement above, being used as a treatment, they are subject to regulation. ANH states that the FDA claims the authority to regulate because of interstate commerce:

"The clinic is engaging in interstate commerce and is therefore subject to FDA regulation because any part of the machine or procedure that originates outside Colorado becomes interstate commerce once it enters the state. Moreover, interstate commerce is substantially affected because individuals traveling to Colorado to have the Regenexx procedure would “depress the market for out-of-state drugs that are approved by FDA.”

In its call for a summary judgement, the FDA expounds upon how under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Commerce Clause it should be able to exert its regulatory authority over Centeno-Schultz’s procedure, which ANH reports it has been battling on this issue for several years. Here are a few snippets of the FDA’s argument from the case documents:

"As we show below, the FDCA contains no “practice of medicine” exception that excuses Defendants’ conduct, and FDA’s exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants’ conduct is a permissible exercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause. Defendants’ remaining arguments are likewise without merit.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fda-using-interstate-commerce-to-regulate-your-stem-cells-as-a-drug/

____________________________________________________________

Now, suppose you tell us which section of the Constitution you personally believe delegates authority over intrastate marijuana policies to fedgov.

[Boogieman]

“there are warehouses of aging bales of marijuana in Central America”

I hate to break it to you, but aging bales of marijuana are just as worthless as aging bales of tobacco. The stuff goes stale pretty quickly, so I would really doubt anybody that told me corporations were investing money in planting and harvesting it now just to have inventory spoil on the shelf, intentionally.

[Boogieman]

“Avoid buying anything that you don’t really need. Become more self-sufficient each month, and learn to manufacture something useful as a hobby for now.”

So let the potheads grow their own, and maybe they’ll become conservatives :)

[Boogieman]

Regarding lefties “chemically lobotomizing” themselves... it’s a strong characterization for pot, but there is a good point there. Pot is a demotivator, but do we really want to find out what all the potheads could do if they were motivated? These people choose voluntarily to veg out, but there’s no telling what trouble they could get into if we take away the bong. I mean, the next Hitler could be playing XBox in his mom’s basement right now, sparing the world from untold atrocities, thanks to the devil weed.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

there are warehouses of aging bales of marijuana in Central America. The warehouses are owned by RJ Reynolds, Lorillard,American Tobacco (the Dukes) and others.

aging bales of marijuana are just as worthless as aging bales of tobacco.

But a tinfoil hat is good indefinitely.

[Monty22002]

And mrleroy, you’re as good as ruining a forum as ever.

[moehoward]

I don't know if I'd want it "legalized". Certainly decriminalized though.

The whole taxing thing sounds like we'd still need to keep our Revenuer Jackboots for the modified WODs. All those 'bootlegger' home grower types. Decriminalize, and it takes away a HUGE cash stream for all those canine shooting 300+ pound doughnut munchers that shoehorn themselves into those Swat/Seal Team 6 costumes. AND it removes any incentive for the mexican cartels to continue their imports.

Win, win.