Posted on 02/20/2015 11:54:50 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
DENVER — Colorado already is being sued by two neighboring states for legalizing marijuana. Now, the state faces groundbreaking lawsuits from its own residents, who are asking a federal judge to order the new recreational industry to close.
The owners of a mountain hotel and a southern Colorado horse farm argue in a pair of lawsuits filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Denver that the 2012 marijuana-legalization measure has hurt their property and that the marijuana industry is stinky and attracts unsavory visitors.
(Excerpt) Read more at registerguard.com ...
And here you go again, trying to restrict this discussion to weed, when your legal argument applies to all drugs. You would more accurately ask:
"Do you agree that CO, rather than fedgov, should regulate intrastate Heroin, Crack, Meth, Cocaine, Krokidil, etc per the Tenth Amendment?
I know; it is beyond foolish to think that our
big-government cannot be turned against us.
The founders knew this and that is why they delegated very specific powers to the federal government in its creation; we should always ask ourselves how Power X could be turned and used against us before even contemplating [at the federal level] there ought to be a law
.
Sadly that seems to be a rather uncommon approach to viewing government, though I am happy to see that it has increased as things like the NSA's domestic spying and ObamaCare and the school-lunch debacles come to light.
“Cartman was right!”
Cartman is always right.
This came up in Philosophy — there's no such thing as limited free will
because if you argue that free choice is still free even when the most reprehensible things are removed from the options the same can be said of the remaining options until there is no option left and thus freedom of choice is denied.
But as for me, I find myself far more concerned about what the government could do to me than what people whose choices I don't like
can: when the government does it they can white-wash the actions, essentially falling back on the implicit assertion that all actions under their authority are good/righteous/legitimate, this excuse obviously doesn't hold up when the one making it is merely my peer as a Citizen
and not vested with governmental authority.
Yes. The drug is a tool for slavery and not a product of good use. Real estate will also be broken for good along with, eventually, the property tax regime. Houses with stubbornly high prices on them will rot. Better get home security systems improved, too. Bar windows and doors for security and for the purpose of making a statement. HOAs will be broken. NIMBYs will be broke.
But...but....the taxes! It’s for the children!
“No society in the world would ever be hurt by not having any marijuana production.”
That could be said about a countless number of things, making it the perfect rationale for unlimited goverment control. I’ll pass.
I don’t think anyone should regulate a weed that would normally grow by the roadside.
The states and Feds have had this coming for decades.
A pox on all of their homes.
You sound like the PETA of weed.
I don’t like the smell of weed smoke in my face either. But we have to draw the line somewhere. No smoking rules should apply to any smoke.
But if the people of CO want weed, let them have it. The Feds should shut up.
The problem is that the Supreme Court has expanded the federal government's "interstate commerce" power to include anything with even the most tangential effect on interstate commerce. Once you decide that growing food at home for your own consumption affects interstate commerce then every human activity affects interstate commerce.
I would love to see some conservatives and libertarians in Congress use the marijuana issue to push through a 10th Amendment restoration act. No federal law based on interstate commerce should apply unless it involves actual interstate commerce.
If you grow, buy or sell marijuana across state lines, then you are subject to federal marijuana laws. If you grow, buy and sell marijuana entirely within one state, then it should be entirely up to that state whether or not to prohibit or regulate it.
Similarly, if an endangered species is migratory or located in multiple states, then killing it is subject to federal laws. If a salamander or bug is located in only one state, then whether it lives or dies has no affect whatsoever on interstate commerce and should be subject only to state laws.
If you want to pollute, dam or divert water from a river that flows through more than one state, then it affects interstate commerce. If you want to drain a pond or swamp on your own property, the federal government should have absolutely no say in the matter.
The list is endless.
I disagree. But it is sure fun watching the experiment.
1: It’s no other state’s business what Colorado does within its own borders.
2: Washington has no legitimate intrastate authority over a plant.
The people have spoken. Pot is legal in CO.
Yes, I do. Colorado is perfectly capable of exercising its own police powers. If you ship it out of state, then the feds can get involved.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." It is one of the enumerated powers. It does not give Congress the power to regulate all commerce in any state.
Once you accept that Congress has the power over any commerce in the U.S., then the federal government is no longer a government of enumerated powers.
Interesting that the reasons these people don’t want legalized pot has nothing to do with the claims made in the suit. There are already laws about odor, running a business that is a nuisance, etc. Just enforce the laws on the books.
The CO legislature didn’t legalize pot. The citizens voted by referendum to enshrine legalized pot in the state constitution.
My Colorado town outlawed all pot grows/shops/etc. by citizen vote. Which is perfectly legal too.
Imagine, someone besides the federal govt making local decisions.
... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
You have the concepts of "objective" and "subjective" mixed up. The right wants NECESSARY government.
No it is not. Pot is illegal anywhere in the U.S. under federal law.
It should be up to Colorado to decide whether or not to allow the intrastate production, purchase and sale of pot, but it is not. At least, not according to over 70 years of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, from Wichard v. Filburn in 1942 through Gonzales v. Raich in 2005.
That is one theory, and perhaps the best argument i've heard so far in favor of legalized weed.
It is, however, not the only consideration. If marijuana establishes the legitimacy of a widespread drug culture, it pretty much spells the end of this nation, because if you let the camel's nose into the tent, there will be nothing to stop the rest of the camel from coming in too.
The Libertarian arguments for legal weed are just as valid for legal Meth.
We don’t care what the FedMob says.
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.