Rhode Island legalizes medical marijuana; House overrides governor's veto

AP ^ | 1/3/6 | M.L. JOHNSON

[SmithL]

Providence, R.I. (AP) --

Rhode Island on Tuesday became the 11th state to legalize medical marijuana and the first since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that patients who use the drug can still be prosecuted under federal law.

The House overrode a veto by Gov. Don Carcieri, 59-13, allowing people with illnesses such as cancer and AIDS to grow up to 12 marijuana plants or buy 2.5 ounces of marijuana to relieve their symptoms. Those who do are required to register with the state and get an identification card.

Federal law prohibits any use of marijuana, but Maine, Vermont, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington allow it to be grown and used for medicinal purposes.

[TKDietz]

Mysterio, I meant to ping you to post number 220.

[don asmussen]

freedom_no_exceptions:

The Constitution does not allow Congress to seize control over anything just by declaring it "regulated."


______________________________________



Paulsen misinforms:

If it's moving interstate, they sure can. The Commerce Clause gives them that power.


______________________________________


Paulsen, you argued for that bogus commerce 'power' on the thread below for thousands of posts..
You lost the debate, and left the field. -- Admit it.


FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1515174/posts?q=1&&page=3001

[Freedom_no_exceptions]

If it's moving interstate, they sure can. The Commerce Clause gives them that power.

I get it. You expect me to argue in circles by AGAIN replying that if it's not moving interstate, they can't. Then you'll reply with the questionable "substantial effect" rule. I, in turn, differentiate between "substantial" and "any," you ignore the substance of my reply and go off on a tangent. Very predictable. You stated your case repeatedly, but I've actually MADE mine, so I'll cut my losses here.

[tacticalogic]

I am looking at the original "meaning" of the definition of the tool. I'm saying that the original "meaning" is much broader than the original "intent".

And basing that assertions on what?

We can look at the history of the tool to determine the meaning, rather than doing a survey of the people the day the tool was invented.

We can, but why would you when you have information available from the people who invented the tool that tells you exactly what it's for? All looking at the history as the authoritative source for determing the meaning does is instutionalize the mistakes made in prior interpretation.

[don asmussen]

Well done.. You've described in a few words paulsens juvenile 'debating' tactics.

Those who play his circular/tangent argument games are drawn into this never-ending spiel, one that gives him a bully pulpit for his unconstitutional theories.

[mysterio]

So, you're saying we have to "catch 'em in the act"? That's so juvenile, I'm speechless.

No. You just have to prove that they crossed state lines with it or sold it across state lines. You know, that they actually did something that gives the feds juridiction under the commerce clause. But I guess proving that is too cumbersome for your bunch that worships the WOD like some pagan god. We better just go ahead and submit to the feds the banning anything that might ever cross a state line, by golly.

[mysterio]

Are you really that slow, or are you being obtuse about your strawman? For the last time, you should be perfectly safe in your analogy, because the man's plane doesn't leave the ground.

Please stop pinging me with your strawman. It's getting boring. I have slaughtered it, burned it, and buried it. I don't want to hear anything else that has anything to do with your false analogy. Please have a coherent argument the next time you try to convince me that a plant growing in a backyard is interstate commerce. I am taking time out of my workday, and my time is too valuable to waste it slapping down the same strawman argument 7 or 8 times.

[commonerX]

Mr. Paulsen
You were very fast at replying to my other post. But you seem to be a little slow with this one.

I'll repeat for you again in case you didn't get it before.

"""1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this title. """"


Ok I'll bite.
How does marijuana and alcohol fit into this list.
And why is one illegal and the other not.

[Freedom_no_exceptions]

Those who play his circular/tangent argument games are drawn into this never-ending spiel

You noticed that too? I suspect that - like me - you've lurked on FR for a while before joining : )

I type rather slowly, so in 2006 I resolve to spend less time at work posting to FR. That means less time trying to convince the unconvinceable.

[robertpaulsen]

"Apart from that, the notion that the government has the legitimate power to forbid possession of mere 'substances' is too 20th Century totalitarian to be seriously regarded by anyone with a historical perspective."

You missed a step in your stream of logic.

Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the several states. The power to regulate includes to power to remove obstacles to trade between states.

Do you believe the power to regulate commerce among the several states includes the power to prohibit interstate commerce?

[headsonpikes]

I believe the rightful power to regulate commerce does not include the right to forbid it.

Period.

[robertpaulsen]

You asked me to show you how. I showed you how.

So do you now agree that thousands of these private planes flying in and out of regulated commercial air corridors would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

[robertpaulsen]

I have no idea. You asked for the standard used by Congress. I gave it to you.

Based on that standard, alcohol is legal and regulated, marijuana is a Schedule I drug.

[commonerX]

Come on Mr. Paulsen.

It was getting good.

I like that list you gave me. Going over it step by step and using alcohol as a legal drug for a reference, you'll lose the argument.

Thank for the list. The problem with it is that the government doesn't follow it's own criteria. The government either manipulates or ignores data that doesn't support its desires, in order to maintain the status quo.

I will post that list and question again because I want to fair in getting your answer.

1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this title. """"


Ok I'll bite.
How does marijuana and alcohol fit into this list.
And why is one illegal and the other not.

[commonerX]

"""I have no idea. You asked for the standard used by Congress. I gave it to you.
Based on that standard, alcohol is legal and regulated, marijuana is a Schedule I drug."""



Didn't think you would reply.



If marijuana became legal wouldn't it also be regulated like alcohol?

Based on the list you gave marijuana should be legal and regulated as well. Do you agree?

[don asmussen]

Well done.. You've described in a few words paulsens juvenile 'debating' tactics.

Those who play his circular/tangent argument games are drawn into this never-ending spiel, one that gives him a bully pulpit for his unconstitutional theories.

You noticed that too? I suspect that - like me - you've lurked on FR for a while before joining : )

Paulsen & I go waaay back. Many of his ilk, -- and mine, - have been here since the beginning.

I type rather slowly, so in 2006 I resolve to spend less time at work posting to FR. That means less time trying to convince the unconvinceable.

The paulsen types here at FR can never be 'convinced', -- as their agenda is one of agit-prop.
They agitate/incite in order to spread propaganda for their unconstitutional 'cause'..

Nasty little game they play, but fighting it can be amusing..

[commonerX]

Well Mr. Paulsen
I must leave now for a while but I will be back later to check your response. Didn't want you to think I was running away from a good argument.

I've come to have an argument.
No you didn't
Yes I did
No you didn't
Yes I did.

This is not an argument
yes it is
no it isn't
yes it is
no it isn't

Sorry about the Monty Python thing, just could pass it up.

[robertpaulsen]

"There just is no comparison to a plane flying up in ..."

Yes there is. If the intrastate activity has a substantial effect on Congress' regulatory efforts, they may legislate that activity.

Look, if the guy is storing his plane on the ground, or even if the guy is flying his plane in non-regulated airspace, he's not having a substantial effect. Only when he flies into regulated airspace do we have a problem, and only then may the federal government prohibit him from flying.

Why? Because he then has a substantial effect on Congress' interstate regulatory efforts. My argument was to rebut the argument that "Congress cannot regulate purely intrastate activities". I used the airplane analogy to show that "yes they can and you even agree with it".

Congress has a finding stating that the possession of drugs has a substantial effect on their interstate regulatory efforts. Go ahead and argue why it shouldn't have an effect. Be my guest. Knock yourself out. But since it does have a substantial effect, we now agree that Congress may legislate it.

[robertpaulsen]

I have no idea what you're arguing. I simply respond to your posts. If you have a point, you sure haven't made one yet.

[commonerX]

But exposing such people for what they are is priceless. And in a small way gets the point out.