Michelle Malkin: Put aside the pot jokes and look again at Colorado legalization

Hotair ^ | 03/26/2014 | Ed Morrissey

[andyk]

Well, yeah, before 1934 you had an American populace buoyed by strong family/social institutions, and guided by strong moral/religious principles. I’d put up a lot of faith and trust in “that” populace to handle scourges.

Society may have changed, but the constitution has not.

The interstate commerce clause has not changed. How do you feel? Is the interstate commerce clause enough to allow the federal government to outlaw substances from houses belonging to citizens of the several states?

[ansel12]

As post 133 shows, you addressed a list of left-wing positions including “assisted suicide, gay marriage, etc” that mentioned “they” who oppose them, and you said that they are not related to anything federal.

I disagree with you, and gave you examples.

Are you going to spam the thread with lies that my post was not relevant to yours, are you that motivated to avoid to talking to one of “they” who doesn’t embrace your liberal views?

[Vermont Lt]

You should take some time and find a person or two that have been through cancer treatments such as those described in the story.

Perhaps pot isn’t the cure, but you response will change from “feh” to one of understanding.

There are lots of debates, but there are at least a few areas where there is general consensus about its efficacy.

[Paladin2]

I find it difficult to believe that Pot has a unique ability to provide palliative relief for any given condition.

[andyk]

The problems cause by pot legalization will be dire and pervasive.

Right, we were saved in 1934. Phew! I think it's funny how people demand reasons for legalization. I wonder if those same people can articulate the reasons for locking people up.

[andyk]

Don't kid yourself. Many of those who think or say they are for less government have no problem contradicting themselves on a daily basis.

When I lived in Colorado, 1999 - 2004, (moving back in 3 months) - I was one of few conservatives in my circle who opposed enforcing background checks at gun shows. 2000, Initiative 22. 70% passed. So many conservatives thought it was no big deal!

Otherwise rational conservative pro gun people, including my favorite 82nd airborne medic ninja, supported the measure that that son of a bitch John McCain stuck his nose in to. It was only a few years later that those same people came to me and told me I was right for opposing it. And they were wrong. They were sorry. It was too late.

The same will come to pass with these FReepers. And it will be too late.

[andyk]

I graduated with Honors in Philosophy in 1980 and I never, not once, put together such an awesome and completely meaningless construction.

That's totally what an egalitarian post-modernist would say.

[tacticalogic]

As post 133 shows, you addressed a list of left-wing positions including “assisted suicide, gay marriage, etc”

You lie.

[ansel12]

To: gdani
*””But when it’s something they are against - marijuana, assisted suicide, gay marriage, etc - they become the Fed Govt’s biggest cheerleaders.””*
If it needs to be under federal authority then we need to get an amendment. If they think we can abuse the Commerce Clause without unintended consequences they’re pissing into the wind.
16 posted on 3/26/2014 10:15:02 AM by tacticalogic

Let’s take your gay marriage for instance, how do you think the feds can escape being involved in that, much less your implying that they are forbidden to be involved?

[andyk]

The problem is that anybody can grow it in their back yards.

Some bastard tried that with wheat. Wickard v. Filburn shut that crap down.

[tacticalogic]

Let’s take your gay marriage for instance, how do you think the feds can escape being involved in that

Simple. They look to the Constitution for an enumerated power that gives them the authority, and failing to find it they say "Sorry, we can't do anything about it. The States never gave us the power to do that, so it's on them.".

Is there something about the concept of a national government of limited and enumerated power you're not getting?

[andyk]

A stoned nation is a loser nation that Putin types will take apart piece by piece.

This issue distracts conservatives. It takes the eye off the ball. Look at the budget deficit. Look at the porous borders. Democrats love the divisiveness. Stop worrying about what your neighbor wants to do after he gets off work. Let's worry about the loss of jobs. Let's worry about the loss of freedom - ridiculous levels of taxation. Why is someone smoking a joint more worrisome than those things? It's so confusing to me.

[ansel12]

Which state decides federal policy on gay marriage for the military and in immigration, and for federal employees?

[Vermont Lt]

Honestly, I am not trying to argue with you about it.

We all know people who have gone through chemo. If you ever think of it, ask around. I was stunned at the people I knew who used it during chemo. They were pretty uptight white guys like me. Changed my mind.

I am simply asking that you keep your mind open to this, just a little bit.

[tacticalogic]

Which state decides federal policy on gay marriage for the military and in immigration, and for federal employees?

They have the power to control immigration policy. States decide their own policy on marriage, and military and federal employees have to comply with the laws of the state they're in. Being federal employees does not make them exempt from state laws.

States don't decide federal policy, and you knew that when you asked the question.

[tacticalogic]

What enumerated power gives Congress the authority to control farming, manufacturing, and personal possesions?

[ansel12]

States decide their own policy on marriage, and military and federal employees have to comply with the laws of the state they're in. Being federal employees does not make them exempt from state laws.

I don't think that we have had the court case of a state telling a Marine General that his marriage is illegal in that state yet, unless the state laws against black and white marriage are looked at.

Remember that abortion and gay marriage in the military and for federal employees, and in immigration, and homosexuals in the military, are all federal.

We need to select candidates who are against liberalism at all levels, from city hall to the state, to the Senate and Presidency, whether negotiating with a County union, or state legislation on gay marriage or abortion, or marriage recognition and abortion in the military, and not let them exist as leaders who support the left’s causes, by pretending that they are forced to support the left’s agenda.

[tacticalogic]

Remember that abortion and gay marriage in the military and for federal employees, and in immigration, and homosexuals in the military, are all federal.

Remembering that doesn't enumerate and ratify any transfer of power to control farming, manufacturing or personal possessions. If you want that we need an amendment.

[ansel12]

You will have to do better than that to avoid the subject, while doing just what I pointed out that you guys do, promote liberalism by avoiding the issues and letting the left just win by never facing opposition from you.

Immigration is federal, the military is federal, federal employment is federal, and the federal government has to make laws for how it decides on those issues, for instance, abortion on federal lands and in military medicine, gay marriage in the military and in immigration, and in federal employment.

We need candidates who oppose those at all levels, state, federal, in city contracts, in County government, at every level.

[tacticalogic]

You said that already, and it went nowhere.