Posted on 12/27/2014 4:02:32 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
You’re dreaming
Legal Pot will be like homosexual marriage in 10 years
The law of the land
Who’da thunk it?
You make drugs more easily available and usage will go up?
Why that’s just crazy talk.
Maybe you and I can Gruberize that study?
This is an example of federalism that happens to be correct. The states cannot pass laws which violate federal laws. I believe we fought this thing called "THE CIVIL WAR" to establish that states cannot do such a thing.
Smoking pot is not a "freedom" it's a dangerous indulgence that harms the users and often many people around them as well. Every pot-head I know is on welfare or some other form of government assistance like SSI. You don't think there "freedom" is just a bit too costly for the rest of us?
Legal Pot will be like homosexual marriage in 10 years
The law of the land
If you mean that things get darker the deeper you go down into the sewer, I agree.
Funny thing is, the feds have been imposing their will the states (through the courts) even when the people in their state overwhelming pass laws and amendments against same sex marriage.
We are told “the issue is settled”.
Federalism is okay with liberals some of the time. Depends on the issue.
I mean libertarians...
That is the question I always wanted answered. How would you like to fly with a pilot who is burnIng a joint as he is preparing for a landing?
Okay, Federalism-lover, exactly what is it that gives the Federal Government jurisdiction to pass laws about drugs? And no using interpretations that allow them to rule on EVERYTHING, because that means that you do not support Federalism, you support authoritarianism. Either the Fedgov has limits, or it does not. If it does (and it should), how do you justify this being on their list, and not on the states?
Pilots cannot smoke a cigarette or drink alcohol while flying, despite those being legal. Yours is an incredibly weak straw-man argument.
How many “DUHS” does this need???
I’m busy with my “shrimp on a treadmill” study. But if you get a grant....I am IN!
Legalize it .... check
Make it a business .... check
not much control ... check
Tell the whole world .... check
Hmmm ... How could this be ?
Uh, no. The CW amendments prohibited the States from enforcing laws that violate the privileges and immunities in the Constitution, a far cry from the scope you imply.
there is NO common sense anymore!
The same section of the constitution which empowers it to pass laws about nuclear material, explosive substances, toxins, bacteria and virology and chemical weapons. It's called "THE DEFENSE CLAUSE".
If it does (and it should), how do you justify this being on their list, and not on the states?
Because it is predominately an international problem and the Federal government is the only agency that has a right and a duty to involve itself in dangers emanating from foreign countries.
The Federal government is charged with defending the nation from threats foreign and domestic. Stopping chemical weapons from reaching Americans is well within their mandate.
Ooh, I know. Call on me!
It is the bastardized Wickard Commerce Clause and its progeny. This has allowed fedgov to control health care, education, the environment and a slew of other areas never intended. Here's a real world example of how Drug War Whores in Raich expanded the Commerce Clause beyond what even the Ninth Circuit was willing to allow. =>
Not long after the decision in Raich, the Court vacated a lower court decision in United States v. Stewart and remanded it to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Raich. In Stewart, the Ninth Circuit had held that Congress lacked the Commerce Clause power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
I was on flying status for 20 years. I know what the rules are, and it doesn't mean just while flying, it means 8 hours before flying. I think we have all heard stories of drunk pilots who did not observe the 8 hour rule. Flying however, is not the issue. I believe the other poster asked if employers can dump people who fail drug tests. That is what I would like to know too. If you want to call it a straw man argument, knock yourself out. I still want to know.
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.