Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Congressional Republican Wants To Know If Marijuana Should Be Legal
The Daily Caller ^ | March 14, 2015 | Jonah Bennett

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much public support there is for reform and it’ll be much more likely they’ll feel emboldened to take action to upgrade outdated marijuana prohibition policies.”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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Louisiana; US: Massachusetts; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: cannabis; congress; legalization; marijuana; nannystate; poll; pot; potheads; stevescalise; warondrugs; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: Amendment10
When commerce is sold across state borders, the Commerce Clause (1.8.3) gives corrupt Congress the constitutional authority to stick its big nose into things.

Do you read the Commerce Clause as allowing fedgov to regulate intrastate marijuana policies?

21 posted on 03/15/2015 4:43:53 PM PDT by Ken H (DILLIGAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

2 to 3 years legal across country.


22 posted on 03/15/2015 4:44:14 PM PDT by free_life (If you ask Jesus to forgive you and to save you, He will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation
"Make it a state level decision."

That's how most, if not all issues should be resolved. If the voters of a state want to have things a certain way, particularly something like this, it should be the business of the people within that state. Not a bunch of busy-bodies in DC.

23 posted on 03/15/2015 4:44:47 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Isn’t it possible to withdraw from that treaty?


24 posted on 03/15/2015 4:46:22 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks ( _\\//)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: goat granny
"I am against it cause we would have not only drunk drivers but stones ones behind the wheel..."

How does the question of legality change any of that?

25 posted on 03/15/2015 4:46:37 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

FORK the UN


26 posted on 03/15/2015 4:47:23 PM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy, and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

In 1917, everybody in Congress understood that Congress did not have the power to regulate or ban alcohol, and that an amendment (XVIII) would be needed to make Federal alcohol legislation constitutional.

Why, in 1971, did Congress not even hesitate to pass Federal drug laws?


27 posted on 03/15/2015 4:49:18 PM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise. .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper; Amendment10
Much of the MJ crop doesn't have to be sold across state lines, and isn't. But the feds dig in anyway. They need put back in the constitutional box they came in. Uphold the 10th and get rid of the 17th would be a good start.

It's actually worse than that; by the interpretation of the commerce clause we have now, congress can regulate things that are never sold. Justice Thomas's dissent of Raich starts off with the following paragraph:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
And it's true: if not-commerce is considered to fall under the power of commerce, then the entire system is logically inconsistent and you can justify ANYTHING.
28 posted on 03/15/2015 4:54:46 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
More the reason to stuff the Fed back in the constitutional box they came in.

/johnny

29 posted on 03/15/2015 4:57:38 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

This is what politicians, government administrators and employees will look like in the near future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4R9eDdq6CE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HDksztNM60

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Ess3BhMWI


30 posted on 03/15/2015 4:58:21 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Marijuana Induced Psychosis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkL38IZjfr8

Girl On Pot Brownies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-vKSBQYBas

Activist Who Smoked In Canadian Parliament Smokes Again on CBC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtNi4kzxdaw

Tricked by a Pothead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3bFZDy4rUk

Where Dope Smoking Leads
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4R9eDdq6CE

Libertarian policy:

New from Vancouver: CRACK PIPE VENDING MACHINES!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aypJRnazcM

Free Crack Pipes in Vancouver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7IB8E-EGOM

Cheap crack house in a libertine society, anyone?

The Million $ Dollar Crack Shack Mansions of the Vancouver Housing Bubble (HD)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIf4LhaZTh8


31 posted on 03/15/2015 5:03:16 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Totally and completely agreed.


32 posted on 03/15/2015 5:08:40 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

General Social Survey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey

At the University of Chicago. Much on race relations there.


33 posted on 03/15/2015 5:09:36 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Scalise is desperate for votes after his DHS/immigration treachery.

Or maybe he’s counting on “short term memory losses” in 2016?


34 posted on 03/15/2015 5:20:14 PM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
What part of the Constitution gives the congress authority to regulate ANY drug?

Or any other dangerous chemical. I'm sure that if we let the British ship opium into our country the way they did in China, there would be absolutely no Constitutional authority to stop them.

35 posted on 03/15/2015 5:28:36 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You are talking oranges and apples. Try to stay current. This is about domestic use of federal law, not international use.

Not the same thing at all.

/johnny

36 posted on 03/15/2015 5:30:56 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Exactly. A constitutional amendment was required to give the federal government power to outlaw alcohol.


37 posted on 03/15/2015 5:41:42 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (True followers of Christ emulate Christ. True followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
You are talking oranges and apples. Try to stay current. This is about domestic use of federal law, not international use.

What difference does that make? I constantly hear that "there is no constitutional authority to ban drugs." So if there is no authority to do it, then it doesn't matter if it's international or interstate. There's no authority, remember?

Not the same thing at all.

Yes, a lack of authority to ban drugs within our borders is completely different from a lack of authority to ban drugs from outside our borders. Totally different. Absolutely.

38 posted on 03/15/2015 5:45:47 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

But the commerce clause was never meant to give the federal government so much power.


39 posted on 03/15/2015 5:51:33 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (True followers of Christ emulate Christ. True followers of Mohammed emulate Mohammed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
The feds have no authority listed in Art 1, Section 8 to do anything with drugs, guns, or other State issues.

If you don't see a difference between using the Constitution internationally, and nationally, that is your blind spot.

Personally, after looking at your home page, I expect you are no friend of freedom or the Constitution. You just seem to like to argue.

/johnny

40 posted on 03/15/2015 5:53:30 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson