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 ...
Or like they used to ban chemical weapons.
Not having a WOD brings a lot more government.
The key phrase being "without due process of law."
Disenfranchising convicted felons no more violates the 14th Amendment then imprisoning them does. I would say that the right not to be locked up in a room for years is a far more fundamental right than the right to vote.
Mostly emanating from that badly written but good intentioned 14th amendment.
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Sir Karl Popper
Your point is too subtle for me.
Another effort to equate indulgent drug usage with necessary production. We must have food. We can live without weed.
It is axiomatic that those freedoms necessary for living are of a much greater consequence than mere indulgences.
And in the case of the various State laws on pot, Gonzalez v. Raich, as noted here.
But my comment is about what should be. We know what "is" due to New Deal overreach.
But being Conservative in the American sense should mean trying to undo all those "Progressive" era usurpations.
What if they want Meth and Heroin? Should the Feds shut up about that too? We are talking about a fundamental principle here.
As the old joke goes, "we've already figured out what kind of girl you are, now we are just negotiating over the price."
Or nuclear material. Or Biological material. Or Toxic Material.
I can't wait to see their vote on the issue of slavery. Do you think they might legalize it?
On the other hand, i'm not sure you are grasping this "federalism" stuff correctly.
I just like seeing the true colors of so many “Conservatives”.
States are free to ban those - Colorado doesn't.
As John Adams pointed out:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Yet he never said federal or state action could make a people moral.
I really don't care what kooks think about anything.
The U.S. Constitution as duly amended rules that out - as it does not do with pot legalization.
Are you referring to my opinion?
Libertarians are always saying drug interdiction is an abuse of the commerce clause, but I have always maintained that the authority to interdict drugs comes from the same place as the authority to interdict Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons.
Or do you dispute the idea that the Federal government has the authority to interdict dangerous substances, especially those coming from outside our borders?
When Gonzalez v. Raich was argued I was really hopeful that a majority on the Supreme Court would use it to overturn Fickburn v. Wickard. Instead, they cited it as binding authority.
The Constitution says whatever 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices say it says. Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy will both turn 80 in 2016. Clarence Thomas will turn 70. The next president will almost certainly fill at least 2 of the 3 seats.
If Hillary is elected, she will fill the seats with far left wing liberals who will be legislating from the bench for the next 30 years. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
So states are required to ban such practices? Suppose they don't. Then what?
As John Adams pointed out:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Given the reverence of the Founders for the document, I'm sure Adams was including people who piss all over the Constitution.
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.