Posted on 04/01/2022 3:23:49 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
I know, ridiculous.
There is no part of our lives too mundane, too private, too solemn, that the Fed gov assholes don't want to intrude.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich BS law.
As you say, BS law.
LOL, I’m sure that made sense when you were typing it. Hey, it’s Friday, might as well get drunk!
I would be very surprised if Cruz votes for legalization? Paul, maybe. It depends on how libertarian he still is.
Its working as intended.
Only issue is the feds have way to much power these days.
Local laws are supposed to take precidence over federal law. However the states have ceeded that power as we went along.
Feds should never have had power to police areas where pot is legal, nor had the power to harass businesses for persuing legal ventures in their state.
Fed is not federal anymore, its a centrist government, like the monarchies of old.
Filburn is the broadest, most sweeping of all USSC decisions.
If something can be bought, or sold in the US...even if it is not, but CAN be...Congress can regulate it.
If ever there were a decision that needed to be overturned, that is the one.
This bill had nothing to do with decriminalizing pot. It had to do with allowing banks to do business with legal growers.
Before the liberal reading of the commerce clause congress could only ban the sale of things across state lines (which is why even today many microbreweries can only sell instate) which is why the 18th amendment was needed.
“...It also authorizes a 5% tax on marijuana and marijuana products that would gradually increase to 8% over five years.”
And in some of those counties, if you have a dirty pipe, they haul you to the police station to pee in a bottle.
If there is such a thing as the ultimate ‘state’s Rights’ issue, this is it.
the issue with federal decriminalization is that it is illegal to transfer or otherwise process any funds derived from it; for example credit card transactions (which means that legal dispensaries must deal in cash, making crime much more likely).
“The fact that some States allow behavior that is explicitly disallowed by the Feds shows that our system is completely screwed up and beyond repair.”
Which is in keeping with Constitution, state or federal control, in your opinion?
And Scalia gave full throated endorsement to Wickard.
I'd sooner inhale the smoke from sleazeball potheads frying in the electric chair than be forced drugged by the nasty psychotropic poison their dirty lips exhale.
F&$# potheads.
I don't drink but what my neighbor drinks is not my business. What he puts in the air I have to breathe is.
F&$# potheads.
Same, nothing in the constitution about horticulture....
However, it is completely different when the Feds have written laws regarding a particular policy that are diametrically opposed to those of particular states.
If the Feds had no policy on marijuana and allowed each state to pass laws supporting, opposing, or limiting the use of marijuana then that would be a case of federalism.
But the Feds have defined marijuana as an illegal substance. So it is illegal everywhere in the US. They have just decided not to enforce that definition because they are cowards.
Our elected "representatives" probably agree that the War on Drugs failed, but they don't want to go on record that they are in favor of declassifying marijuana because they think some of their constituents will view that as them supporting the use of marijuana.
Also, our elected "representatives" are idiots. With one hand they legalize marijuana, and with the other hand they apply extreme levels of regulation and taxation such that they guarantee the creation of a black market.
So those politicians who claim they will accept an increase in drug use and its negative consequences in order to reap the benefits of less crime and gang activity are just fooling themselves.
My own take is that the politicians are more likely evil than stupid and they are getting a cut of the drug funds from the gangs supplying the black market they created with their taxes and regulations.
It's not about central control vs. state control. It is about cowardice and graft.
Can I come over?
Yeah, no problem growing castor beans, but pot...
Pretty soon the entire nation watching candles drip...
There is nothing in the Constitution about "local laws". The Constitution doesn't explicitly recognize the existence of cities, counties, or provinces. It only recognizes states. If a state made all laws at the state level and denied cities and counties the ability to make their own laws, then the Constitution would have nothing to say about that.
If by "local" you mean state, then what you say is also incorrect. It is not about state laws having precedence over federal laws. It's about state laws filling in the gaps where federal law has no say. The original intention was for the gaps to be very wide, but our system has evolved to the point where the gaps are very narrow and states have very little leeway in making adjustments to the edicts that come down from the Feds.
My own belief is that we are moving more and more toward centralized control because the Feds can run huge deficits, but the states can't. Because the states can't run huge deficits, and because the Feds mandate all manner of the things that the states must do, the states necessarily go into debt and then depend on the Feds to bail them out.
This just leads to more indebtedness and more mandates. Meanwhile the Feds can just print more money or manipulate the money supply in other ways to kick the can down the road a little further.
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.