Posted on 03/15/2015 4:01:52 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The recent signing of a medical marijuana bill by GOP Sens. Rand Paul and Dean Heller hasn’t gone unnoticed. Republican Majority Whip Steve Scalise has introduced a poll on his website, asking people to vote on whether marijuana should be legalized on the federal level.
Scalise in the past has voted down marijuana reform legislation, Marijuana.com reports. On May 30, 2014, Scalise voted against an amendment in the House to prevent the Department of Justice from using funds from its budget to crack down on states that have enacted medical marijuana programs. Later, in July, Scalise voted against legislation to prohibit states from penalizing banks that offer financial services to marijuana companies.
Marijuana advocates see the poll as a possible sign that Scalise may be considering switching his position. Poll results as of late have shown that the country is increasingly moving toward pro-marijuana attitudes. The General Social Survey in particular found that 52 percent of Americans support marijuana legalization. Only 42 percent remain opposed. (RELATED: Survey: Majority Of Americans Support Legal Marijuana)
“This is a great sign because we know that whenever voters are asked their position on marijuana laws, the result always comes out to be strongly pro-legalization,” Tom Angell, chairman of the Marijuana Majority, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “As more politicians begin to engage with their constituents on this topic, they will see how much public support there is for reform and it’ll be much more likely they’ll feel emboldened to take action to upgrade outdated marijuana prohibition policies.”
However, Scalise’s office made it clear that the poll isn’t any indication that the Majority Whip is changing his position.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
There is no "Defense" clause in the Constitution that says what you say it does. You're lying to us.
There is no "Defense" clause in the Constitution that says what you say it does. You're lying to us.
Or perhaps you are just obtuse.
I might be, but you're still lying about the "Defense" clause.
“What part of the Constitution gives the congress authority to regulate ANY drug?”
The same one that says Congress can pay people to be deadbeats.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The same one that says Congress can pay people to be deadbeats.
Are you agreeing that Congress has no authority to regulate any drug? Or are you saying that since liberals use the Constitution as toilet paper, it's OK for conservatives to do the same?
I’m saying that reality is reality. Congress can do anything but the country let them do anything. If you had focused on this stuff before the “War on Drugs”, you wouldn’t be fighting a losing battle.
So your position is that the Constitution does not give the Government the power to defend us?
That is a very weird position if you ask me.
It's in the Emanation from the Penumbra! Everybody knows that!
What is this ephemeral "the Government"? In a republic there is no "the Government".
You won't acknowledge the simple truth because you are intellectually dishonest and you *WANT* to believe that you have a "right" to take your f***ing drugs. Well you don't, and the Constitutional Provisions for the DEFENSE of this nation Demonstrate that YOU DO NOT.
If you are too stupid to discern the meaning from the context, then I can see why you don't grasp the fact that the US Constitution allows the Defense of the Nation against DRUGS. Perhaps you should put down the drugs. They are tampering with your ability to think clearly.
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Those listed powers grant the Federal government the ability to deal with THREATS to the populace in whatever form they may take.
No they don't, as any literate person can see - if not blinded by a lust to emanate whatever penumbras serve their pet crusade.
You are a pawn of the destroyers.
You can't show us the "facts" you claim, because they don't exist. Insults and personal attacks won't re-write the Constitution.
Nah, you guys have that covered pretty well yourselves.
Sucks when your bluff gets called, doesn't it?
It sucks when the dope heads keep spread lies and then you have to keep spending time to beat them down with the truth.
Would that you had some.
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.