Posted on 07/27/2014 5:18:10 PM PDT by Ken H
-snip-
There are no perfect answers to people’s legitimate concerns about marijuana use. But neither are there such answers about tobacco or alcohol, and we believe that on every level — health effects, the impact on society and law-and-order issues — the balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization. That will put decisions on whether to allow recreational or medicinal production and use where it belongs — at the state level.
We considered whether it would be best for Washington to hold back while the states continued experimenting with legalizing medicinal uses of marijuana, reducing penalties, or even simply legalizing all use. Nearly three-quarters of the states have done one of these.
Part 1: Let States Decide on Marijuana
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
All of a sudden “state’s rights” is cool.
-PJ
“All of a sudden “state’s rights” is cool.”
Unless you mean gun rights, “gay” marriage, etc.
I am sick of the freedoms the government has stolen from us all to protect us from ourselves.
Propose what? Even if the federal ban on intrastate drug commerce were Constitutional - which it isn't - Congress is not required to actively exercise all powers granted to it.
What?
23.6 Billion ruling against tobacco, but pot is A-OK. Only in bizarro mondo.
There’s an ulterior motive here. Stalinists like complacent, docile sheep. Hence the clarion call for legalizing marijuana.
Are you against letting the states decide, as the Tenth Amendment dictates?
My point is that marijuana all of a sudden has become in vogue and lawmakers are scrambling over themselves to legalize it. Just a few years ago, there were strict laws on the books just for possession. What changed? Obama and the Left seizing power. Who do they need to help them? Docile, doped-up millennials who'll carry their water for them. Also explains why prescription drug abuse is out of control.
As a consequence of many generations of parents not making sure that their children are being taught about constitutionally enumerated rights versus 10th Amendment-protected state powers, or the differences between legislative and judicial powers, voters don't understand the following about so-called gay marriage rights.
They don't understand that since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay "rights," that pro-gay activist judges are wrongly legislating such "rights" from the bench.
If the NY Times was intellectually honest, they would demand repeal of all gun laws too.
The Central American Three Stooges told Barry that the American “appetite” for recreational drugs is drawing Central American “unaccompanied minors” to the U.S. like moths to a candle. If we legalize marijuana (and tax da hell out of it), every “unaccompanied minor” in Central America will be showing up at the border and declaring themselves a “refugee” or whatever the Spanish word for “refugee” is.
But don’t let the states decide on Obamacare or gay marriage.
Your own added title refers to repealing Prohibition, which was amendment 18 prohibiting alcohol for public use and then amendment 21 repealing amendment 18.
The actual article (and actual title) refers to getting Congress to repeal a previously passed federal law. The actual title hints at state's rights, but calls for Congress to undo a previous Congress.
If we follow your lede, a Constitutional solution is being called for. Amendment 18 to prohibit, amendment 21 to repeal the prohibition, and now amendment 28 to prevent future federal interference in the subject?
I simply glibly suggested that a way to test the several states' appetite for taking control of drug laws is to let a bloc of states propose a controlling amendment at an upcoming Article V proposing convention, instead of having Congress take their time away from more immediate concerns to propose a solution that parallels Prohibition.
-PJ
The reason they are pushing this is to get the liberal voters to show up for the next big election.
Wow, their cognitive dissonance is enough to make MY head spin.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, FDR's justices also wrongly ignored that the Supreme Court had previously clarified that intrastate agriculture is an aspect of a state's intrastate commerce that Congress has no business regulating.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
So arguing that it's a “good idea” to let the states decide on intrastate marijuana production is beside the point, imo, since the federal government actually has no constitutional authority to regulate such things, interstate commerse being another issue.
On the other hand, noting that the 18th Amendment prohibiting booze was later repealed by the 21st Amendment, there's nothing stopping the states from amending the Constitution to make things like marijuana the federal government's business.
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.