Posted on 03/05/2015 6:14:02 AM PST by Ken H
The lawsuit brought against the state claims sheriffs are faced with a "crisis of conscience"
A group of sheriffs will file a lawsuit Thursday against Colorado for its legal marijuana law.
The lawsuit says legalizing pot on a state level while it’s still illegal on a federal one creates a “crisis of conscience,” USA Today reports.
Colorado is “asking every peace officer to violate their oath,” Larimer County, Colo., Sheriff Justin Smith, the lead plaintiff in the suit, said. “What we’re being forced to do … makes me ineligible for office. Which constitution are we supposed to uphold?”
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Only YOU are trying to make a correlation between 17th/18th century China and 21st century America!!!
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
It has been noted that all of the worst Presidents we've had so far (after Wilson) won their office on the basis of Women's votes.
Evidence?
Which of the legal arguments will be different between the two? People said that the issue of "gay marriage" would also justify polygamy, and everyone said that was nonsense.
Now what are we hearing from the courts?
The boundaries between these issues (pot and other drugs) are all illusory. There are no boundaries.
This may come as a shock to you, but human life hasn't evolved much in the last century. We are just as susceptible to opiates today as we were a hundred years ago.
Waddoups' ruling attacks the parts of Utah's law making cohabitation illegal. In the introduction, Waddoups says the phrase "or cohabits with another person" is a violation of both the First and 14th amendments. Waddoups later writes that while there is no "fundamental right" to practice polygamy, the issue really comes down to "religious cohabitation." In the 1800s — when the mainstream LDS Churh still practiced polygamy — "religious cohabitation" in Utah could have actually resulted in "multiple purportedly legal marriages." Today, however, simply living together doesn't amount to being "married," Waddoups writes.
"The court finds the cohabitation prong of the Statute unconstitutional on numerous grounds and strikes it," Waddoups later writes.
You should know by now that I do read links others provide!
Not sure what you mean by "legal arguments" - it's not courts overturning marijuana bans - but the practical argument that pot is less harmful than the already legal drug alcohol doesn't apply to opium.
—A State law may not override a Federal law. That’s not how this works.—
Unless said state law prohibits gay marriage, right? Then it’s just peachy.
-—Abortion kills a body not the aborter’s - drugs enter no body but the user’s.
They certainly enter my wallet. Every dope smoker I know gets welfare or SSI, or some other government check.
And all those fatties on welfare get free diabetes medications, etc., paid for by you.
Better get to work banning Cheetos and Twinkies.
-—These sheriffs took on their jobs when marijuana was both immoral and illegal. -—
So if the citizens of Colorado vote to make right turns on red illegal, and the Sheriffs don’t like it they can violate the will of the people? Get out.
—And you think Freedom will continue to exist in a Libertarian society? How naive.-—
You think you are ‘free’ now? How cute.
—Just how do you suppose drug usage grew from relatively nothing to whatever it happens to be now?-—
When sugar and coffee were introduced to Europe, puritans wanted those substances banned too.
Plus ca change...
—Human biochemistry hasn’t changed much in the last million years or so, and you think what took down China won’t also take down us? —
China wasn’t taken down by opium. China was taken down because it was a sclerotic, top-down, ossified, feudal society that was outwitted, outgunned and outmaneuvered by a dynamic, capitalist, free, tiny little island on the other side of the globe.
-—I have personally known several people who died as a result of their involvement with drugs.-—
I have personally known several people who died as a result of their involvement with alcohol.
Better crank up the Amendments to ban it.
-—I’ve known several people who paid the ultimate price for their drug habits. -—
You’re talking about cigarettes, right?
—What, another one of you popping off with this nonsensical and misleading claim?
Hint, We didn’t have laws against nuclear weapons either, and for the same reason.—
Nuclear weapons were not invented until 1945. Opium was used as a drug for centuries until the FDA was created. Nuclear weapons can kill hundreds of thousands in seconds. Opium cannot.
Is this really how “conservatives” debate? Didn’t any of you hysterical nanner-staters take a rhetoric course in college or high school?
—It is a deliberate effort to mislead the public about the fact that drugs were mostly unknown in the early days of the Republic, and not till they became widespread after the Civil War did anyone realize just how dangerous they were.
Laws to regulate them came shortly thereafter.—
Nonsense. Alcohol has been around for how many 1000s of years?
I also love how you think “60 years” equals “shortly thereafter”.
Conservatives rightly complain about government propaganda unless the propaganda is about drugs, then everyone here thinks the government should be trusted. Laughable.
—Once again you equate soda pop and junk food with marijuana.
No matter how many times you’ve been told, there is a distinction.
—
Not really. Soda pop and junk food serve no purpose whatsoever other than to stimulate the pleasure receptors in your brain. There’s no nutritional value whatsoever in a can of coke. None. Zilch.
For a site where people are usually so clear-headed and rational, this topic sure brings out the poorest of debaters.
—A stoned society is not productive—
Yeah, unless the ‘drug’ you are ‘stoned’ on is caffeine, right?
-—Maybe after seeing it several times, it will finally sink in that legalization will STILL ENRICH DRUG DEALERS-—
You mean like Pfizer?
We are just as susceptible to opiates today as we were a hundred years ago.
“Genetic factors account for about half of the likelihood that an individual will develop addiction. Environmental factors interact with the person’s biology and affect the extent to which genetic factors exert their influence. Resiliencies the individual acquires (through parenting or later life experiences) can affect the extent to which genetic predispositions lead to the behavioral and other manifestations of addiction. Culture also plays a role in how addiction becomes actualized in persons with biological vulnerabilities to the development of addiction.” - American Society of Addiction Medicine
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.