Posted on 12/20/2011 6:30:01 PM PST by neverdem
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wants to prohibit patients from protecting themselves.
If you are a medical marijuana patient in one of the 16 states (plus the District of Columbia) that allow for it, you’ve got reason to believe lately that the government has it in for you.
You’ve got federal raids on the places where you can conveniently buy your medicine, the governor of Arizona trying to overturn in court her citizens’ choice to institute a medical marijuana system, and Michigan’s attorney general trying to make life as hard as he can for those using the system his state’s voters approved by 63 percent in 2008. And while it isn’t directly the government’s fault, doctors are taking people off liver transplant waiting lists for using medical pot.
It isn’t just that the government on both the federal and state level doesn’t want you to be able to legally and conveniently obtain your medicine, if that medicine is pot. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) insists you inherently lose a key constitutional right merely by letting your state know you might want to take pot medicinally.
Merely having a state medical marijuana card, BATFE insists, means that you fall afoul of Sect. 922(g) of the federal criminal code (from the 1968 federal Gun Control Act), which says that anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” is basically barred from possessing or receiving guns or ammo (with the bogus assertion that such possession implicates interstate commerce, which courts will pretty much always claim it does).
Nevada licenses medical pot users. Rowan Wilson, a Carson City-area woman who works as a medical technician in residential care homes, believes pot might be useful for her painful menstrual cramps. After going through…...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Fence in a piece of land two miles on each side. Triple fence with motion sensors, center one electrified, cameras and only one gate. all those sentenced to life without parole get to go in but do not come out. When they go in they are handed a back pack with garden seeds and a few hand tools and told to plant quick if they want to eat. No guards inside the fence. The inmates must police themselves.
Bet you lay awake at night wondering why the Founders ever even bothered creating things called "States," eh?
How annoying for you, when with one smoooooth federal overlay, things could be put right once and for all - eh?
Definitely. Wait’ll she hits menopause. She’ll demand oxycontin.
We would need several tiers of prisons for that. One with the rehabilitative ones and stagger it up to the completely violent and hopeless cases. The ones who have absolutely no respect for anything.
The ones that are small time, one time crooks could clean up the mess from the others so they could see their futures if they didn’t shape up.
Still liking the yellow jumpsuit idea. Make’em think about their impending demise.
>These bureaucrats just nailed some company for putting on their water bottle that it prevents dehydration (making it a drug).
I would strongly fight that. In fact, I’d bring a dictionary and read the definition of ‘dehydration’ and then mock the prosecution relentlessly.
(Also I’m pretty sure I could use 18 USC 242 to counter-attack.)
>Of course they want to get everyone and everything on ridiculous technicalities. They let the real abusers free. They may actually be sticking up for them. You little peons though, no, they will clampy down on you and crush you with every technicality they can find.
Indeed.
I’ve heard that Obamacare makes it a felony to not have ‘qualifying’ healthcare. Laying aside the issue that ‘qualifying’ can whimsically be changed, I’m fairly sure there is no exemption/mercy for those who have a break-in-coverage say from changing policies or (considering the economy) unemployment.
Therefore, I can only surmise that there will be a LOT of felons come 2014 when Obamacare comes into effect; and at that point there will be lots of otherwise law-abiding citizens which will be denied their right to keep and bear arms.
You must not be a fan of the Tenth Amendment.
Immaterial. See post #3. My personal feelings one way or the other do not enter into the matter.
Tell you what: I am certain enough that Scalia will rule against Obamacare in March that I am willing to make a serious bet with you. Unfortunately, since I have a policy of anonymity on this website, due to past experiences with psychos, it can not be a monetary wager.
How does this sound? If Scalia upholds the appellate decision, I will voluntarily suspend my account for a month. If he does not, you will do likewise.
I am not at all certain how Scalia will vote. He sold out his originalist principles in Raich, so it would not be that big a deal to go against his own opinion in that case.
Keep in mind that two of his protoges did uphold Obamacare based on his opinion in Raich. I simply advised you not to bet your lunch money. You're free to ignore my advice.
In fact, I do. But that opinion is not germane to the discussion of how the Fed abuses, or does not abuse, the 10th.
My original post was sarcasm and aimed at the fact that the prescribing of medical marijuana is very much abused. Those who use the substance should expect problems when trying to apply or maintain an LTC. Right or wrong, like it or not, that's the way it is.
Federal anti-gun laws are based on the same expansive view of the Commerce Clause that makes national marijuana prohibition possible, so it is indeed germane.
I quoted from Scalia's opinion in Raich upthread on this page. Here's a quote from Thomas on the same case. Which of the two got it right, in your opinion?
Thomas: 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.
J. Thomas, dissenting in Raich
I really think you’re onto something there. Send Sheriff Joe of Maricopa Cty AZ your plan. Of course, the pink uniforms might clash with the yellow one
I really think you’re onto something there. Send Sheriff Joe of Maricopa Cty AZ your plan. Of course, the pink uniforms might clash with the yellow one
And yet some 'constitutional conservatives' cheer federal drug laws. Go figure.
It seemed to me that your point was that Scalia might not rule against Obamacare because of this. I think that is ridiculous. Did you have another point?
Which Scalia will overturn. You have no point.
You simply cannot deny that he gave full throated endorsement to the expansive view of the Commerce Clause, upon which federal control of health care depends.
Thomas gets it right, obviously.
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.