Man Fired for Pot Use Plans Court Test of Medical Marijuana Law

going out to dinner, catch you after I get back.

--Boot

Another example of federal law

Nevada has marijuana completely decriminalize up to 3oz of marijuana this year on the ballot.

Snip.While states have reduced penalties for some marijuana offenses without interference from the federal government, he said any measure that put a state in the drug business would violate federal law and draw a challenge from the Justice Department.

In general, when state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law takes precedence, giving federal prosecutors the discretion to pursue a case or not. A state-regulated drug operation, Mr. Stroup said, would be too much for the federal government to ignore. end snip.

As you can see, the Feds are doing more than interstate commerce and going after intrastate as well.

And for your viewing pleasure while I compose a response:

The Milky Way Over Mount Blanc

--Boot

rb22982 exclaims: "Wow you are so wrong on so many levels."

Oh??

rb22982 exclaims: "You haven't given a SINGLE reason why it should be illegal...Name ONE, just ONE reason why alcohol should be legal..."

LOL, you still haven't figured what I've been saying, have you? Let me show you in outline form and see if that clears it up for you and follow that up with an example.

You presented the premise (alcohol is worse than marijuana because...
The logic of your premise contains the following two flaws.
- You failed to present reason or logic for your unspoken presumption that the standards you included in your premise were the proper standards by which to compare the two drugs.
- You failed to present reason or logic to show why your list should exclude the possiblity of any other standards.
Your failure to present reason or logic to justify your presumptions is not mine to rectify. That job is yours. Until you can support your presumptions with reason and logic, there is no point in me offering examples or reasons for the ban on marijuana and not alcohol.

Just to make sure that you understand what I'm driving at, allow me to suggest by example, a possible rephrasing of your premise, then compare it to your original and see if that clears it up for you.

"Marijuana is safer, less addictive and less of a high than alcohol, therefore..."
-- rb22982 premise
"If we assume that the proper criterion for comparing marijuana to alcohol is the relative risk each drug presents, then one should at least consider their safety (i.e., danger to the user and others), level of addiction and level of intoxication. By this standard, marijuana is less hazardous than alcohol, therefore..."
-- possible rephrasing of rb22982 premise

Notice that in the rephrasing you are no longer treating an unstated presumption as fact, you clearly state that you are only assuming that relative risk is the only proper criteria for comparison. Assuming is OK if you state that as a given in your premise. But if you intended to limit the possibilities to only relative risk, you would then have to offer some sort of logic or reason for that.

Notice also that in that rephrasing, the three standards offered (safety, addiction, intoxication) are qualified by the phrase "..at least..." these standards. Here you would no longer have your unspoken presumption that the only three possible standards are the one's offered.

The rest of your post consists of further pleas and demands that I offer some examples to correct your flawed premise, but you can't get to those arguments, examples, etc., until you present a coherent premise. I await either your rephrasing of the premise or some logic and reasons to support your presumption that three standards you offered are the correct ones to use and that no others are possible.

BTW, I notice you had no comment on my replies to your questions about the 10th 18th and 21 Amendments. Was that an oversight?

--Boot

Impressive.

rb22982 says: "I understand interstate commerce, however the federal government has banned INTRA state as well."

Let's be clear from the start, rb22982, I don't believe everything the feds do in the WOD is constitutional. I believe that real conservatives would be as strongly against any unconstitutional actions in regards the WOD as they would be if the issue was gun control. But the unconstitutionality of some laws doesn't mean that all laws against drugs are unconstitutional.

That said, your claim that the feds have banned intrastate commerce in drugs is demonstrably false. If you think that I'm wrong, then show me one law on the books that says they have claimed jurisdiction over intrastate commerce in drugs, either explicitly or implicitly. However, I can understand how some of the things they do can make it look that way. To understand this, let's take a closer look at just what interstate commerce includes.

If you drive from your home in Greensboro to a FReep in Washington, DC and you happen to be carrying your stash, are you engaged in interstate commerce? No of course not. While you where involved in interstate travel, you were only carrying your own stash and were therefore not engaged in commerce.

Now what about the case where your "stash" weighs 500 pounds?(!) Now can you be considered to be engaged in interstate commerce? You bet! You've crossed state lines with a quantity of dope that has only one reasonable (the standard by which an arrest is effected) explanation and that is that you did for purposes of commerce.

Let's look at examples that don't cross state lines.

The California Highway Patrol are tipped by a "reliable informant" that a tractor-trailer rig at a truck stop along I-5 in Redding, CA is carrying 20,000 pounds of weed. After they search the truck and find the dope, they note that the truck is registered and licensed in CA and that the drivers residence and license are in CA. Is this an issue involving interstate commerce? At first glance you may not think so. After all, we have no evidence that the truck ever crossed state lines with the load. And both the truck and the driver are registered and licensed in CA. But for so large a load, there is no other rational explanation but that at least some portion of the load is destined for points outside CA. Therefore, this is an issue involving interstate commerce, even though the truck has not yet crossed state lines.

Thus either dope growing or dope distribution, even though it has not yet crossed state lines can still legitimately fall under the interstate commerce clause simply because of the quantity involved (among other reasons).

rb22982 asks: "Why do you think they keep going into California Medical Marijuana facilities"

In the case of raids that are exclusively a DEA operation and the charges filed are federal, we are talking about major quantities of dope being grown or distributed and where a reasonable presumption can then be made that this size crop/distribution will include interstate trafficking.

rb22982 asks: "A state-regulated drug operation...would be too much for the federal government to ignore."

Yes and for very good reason. Suppose that pursuant to the passage of that NV proposition, that a small mom and pop store in tiny little town in the middle of the state had half a pound of dope on hand for sale under the state plan to just a few locals. Could the feds raid this place under the theory of interstate commerce? After all, they only have 1/2 a pound and in the middle of the state, they can't be said to aiming their sales at out-of-staters. Yup, you bet they can, because the states sanctioning of the marijuana enterprise makes the entire enterprise, one single gigantic operation of which mom and pop are but one tiny outlet. And that big an operation can not help but to include interstate commerce. There's your nexus to the interstate commerce clause.

It's 4:00am and I'm getting pooped and I've got still got some work to finish up. Catch you on the net tomorrow.

--Boot

Thanks for the kind comment and encouragement.

Regards,

Boot Hill

No no no and no again. Let me turn this around on you then since this is the way you seem to want to play. These questions are simply independent of each other.

Why should marijuana be illegal.
Why should alcohol be legal
Why drug prison times reflect the problems the drug causes in all cases except marijuana, alcohol and nicotine.

Your failure to present reason or logic to justify your presumptions is not mine to rectify.

It's just that you are not getting the logic, does not mean it is not present. My position is actually not presumption. Before marijuana (and all other currently illicit substances) was declared illegal, there had to be a reason to make it illegal, Correct? What were those reasons? When you tell your kids not to intake a substances, what reasons would you give them besides it being illegal which is circulatory (bad because illegal, illegal cause its bad)?

The year is 1937. Marijuana is currently legal. YOU make the case to have it outlawed.

You have failed to give any reasons to make/keep marijuana illegal, especially in light of currently legal substances.

I did address your comments on the Constitution, you are right, the 18th and 21st banned intra-state commerce, however the feds have banned intra-state commerce as well.

You gave valid reasons for interstate commerce, which I wasn't arguing. This little snippet however..

Yes and for very good reason. Suppose that pursuant to the passage of that NV proposition, that a small mom and pop store in tiny little town in the middle of the state had half a pound of dope on hand for sale under the state plan to just a few locals. Could the feds raid this place under the theory of interstate commerce? After all, they only have 1/2 a pound and in the middle of the state, they can't be said to aiming their sales at out-of-staters. Yup, you bet they can, because the states sanctioning of the marijuana enterprise makes the entire enterprise, one single gigantic operation of which mom and pop are but one tiny outlet. And that big an operation can not help but to include interstate commerce. There's your nexus to the interstate commerce clause.

..Throws out the necessity for the 18th and 21st amendment.

I'll find intrastate ban on marijuana for feds law soon and post it here later.

Here is one link

Feds not only ban the commerce of it, but also the substance itself is illegal to possess.

No I DIDN"T substitute wine for marijuana. YOU did. I said the Bible speaks of both plants(herbs) as medicine and wine as permitted for man's use, not ABUSE.

Come on, now. I know you can read. Here's what you wrote:

Aren't herbs (plants) mentioned in the Holy Bible as being given to us for medicine ?
Also those who condemn all consumption of alcohol forget that Jesus Christ Himself changed the water into wine, and Paul recommended a cup of wine for the digestion.
There is nothing wrong in the proper use or consumption of what gifts God has provided ; it is the ABUSE that is the problem.

There are specific and serious warnings in the Scriptures about abusing alcohol while at the same time permitting the proper use of it (most notably, in memory of Christ). There are similar warnings about food and gluttony, but there are no such references to inhaling the smoke of plants as proper use of them, and no such warnings about the abuse of them either.

With all due respect, you are making that up.

RB,

I'm going to try to consolidate the multiple posts into one response.

rb22982 says: "No no no and no again."

LOL, you forgot to stomp your feet!

You seem unable to grasp the simple concept of debate that when you post unsupported claims, it is incumbent upon you to defend and prove those claims, not the party questioning them. But in the interest of moving this discussion along, I'll agree to go ahead and show you where your premise is false.

"Marijuana is safer, less addictive and less of a high than alcohol [therefore] since alcohol is legal, its only logical to make marijuana legal as well [and if you don't] you are a hypocrite of the worst kind..."
-- rb22982 [clarification added]

It is interesting to note that your solution to the inherent risk of marijuana is that you choose to make it legal, rather than making both illegal thus increasing the cumulative risk to society. But since you make that choice, we must deal with the why and how society chooses to deal with risks.

THIS FAR AND NO FARTHER ---
People have long recognized the danger to the individual (and the society as a whole), inherent in the abuse of mind altering substances like alcohol and marijuana. They have also recognized, as well, the impossibility of eliminating or controlling all of the different substances available to mankind. In response to the problem of risk, the people, in their "wisdom", decided through their elected representatives, that they would draw a line on such abuse and go "this far an no farther".

If society chooses to limit risk, then there has to be some limit to the cumulative or total amount of risk from all substances combined. Some like to quibble whether the line should include marijuana along with alcohol, some even argue that it should include neither. But like it or not, this is where the line has been drawn. Should any line have been drawn? If the risk to society is real, then absolutely yes, some line should be drawn. The failure for a society to act in the face of hazard is to elect eventual extinction rather than existence.

IS RELATIVE RISK THE CRITERION?
Now we can deal with your false premise that "relative risk" is the appropriate criterion for comparison. The reason alcohol is legal and marijuana is illegal is not one of relative or comparative risk, but rather one of more mundane practical considerations.

Alcohol can be made from products commonly found in all kitchens and grocery stores. Marijuana can not. Alcohol is made from materials that are the basic food stuffs for six billion people. It is ubiquitous. Marijuana is not. Therefore alcohol will always be unavoidably plentiful and available.
Alcohol has long held a myriad of other important uses as a basic substance of the chemical industry, including solvents, fuels, medicines, military uses, etc. Marijuana has no such vital uses. Therefore, alcohol can never be dispensed with in society. Marijuana can be.
Alcohol has been the common drug of choice used my more people and more societies over a greater period of history than marijuana. Therefore, alcohol is a far better understood and accepted drug than marijuana.

These are the practical reasons that, despite any comparative risk assessment, alcohol continues, and will continue, to be legal while marijuana is banned. Your presumption that it just had to be relative risk, is therefore flawed and false.

On to other matters...

rb22982 says: "however the feds have banned intra-state commerce as well."

To the extent that we look at examples of that and both agree that the specific regulation in question is intrastate in nature, then I agree that those should be overturned as unconstitutional.

But if I understand your position, that would still not remove your more fundamental objections that you have about federal government banning drugs under any theory in the first place. In other words, for you to object to intrastate vs. interstate, is a bit of a red herring, in that you object to both when it comes to banning drug commerce. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong!

rb22982 says: "This little snippet however...[implications of NV legalizing the sale of marijuana]...Throws out the necessity for the 18th and 21st amendment.

By that, I take it you mean that it would then become and example of Congress trespassing on intrastate commerce, correct? How so? State sanctioning and control of all marijuana sales and distribution makes it a single gigantic enterprise, just like organized crime. It would be impossible to have an enterprise that size that was not affecting interstate commerce.

The only way to make it legal without the state becoming part of the business would be to simply remove all laws governing marijuana from the books thereby making the state "silent" on the issue (not prohibiting it, not sanctioning it).

rb22982 says: "Feds not only ban the commerce of it, but also the substance itself is illegal to possess." (including link)

Poor, yet nevertheless valid, example. Of course simple possession can be made illegal under the interstate commerce theory because the quantity can be so large as to be explained only by its effect upon interstate commerce. The question should be possession of how much? If the amount is less (for instance) 20 pounds, then it would (as I have said before) have no business being controlled under any interstate commerce theory. That tiny portion of the federal enforcement activity would be unconstitutional.

This is not a post, it is a friggen book!

--Boot

It is interesting to note that your solution to the inherent risk of marijuana is that you choose to make it legal, rather than making both illegal thus increasing the cumulative risk to society. But since you make that choice, we must deal with the why and how society chooses to deal with risks.

No, actually that is not what I said, You continue to miss what I said. Let me repost from just the last post.

Why should marijuana be illegal.
Why should alcohol be legal

And you still fail to give a reason why marijuana should be illegal. You have given a backdrop of how people come to a conclusion to ban a substance, but no supporting evidence to make it illegal. Just asking you, do support keeping alcohol legal?

THIS FAR AND NO FARTHER --- People have long recognized the danger to the individual (and the society as a whole), inherent in the abuse of mind altering substances like alcohol and marijuana. They have also recognized, as well, the impossibility of eliminating or controlling all of the different substances available to mankind. In response to the problem of risk, the people, in their "wisdom", decided through their elected representatives, that they would draw a line on such abuse and go "this far an no farther".

Actually this is simply not true. The first drug law was 1913 with Cocaine which actually didn't ban it (it was thought at the time to be unconstitutional), so they placed a tax on it and then never issued a tax. The second drug law was alcohol with the 18th amendment which was of course constitutional and overturned with the 21st. The next was marijuana in 1937 with FDR due to propaganda such as this and this. They did the same thing, simply never issuing a stamp tax to purchase it. In '69 this method was dropped in favoring of just banning it outright and it has held up in the courts (so far). Even in the history of the US, banning a substance is relatively new, in terms of the entire world it is almost unheard of.

If society chooses to limit risk, then there has to be some limit to the cumulative or total amount of risk from all substances combined. Some like to quibble whether the line should include marijuana along with alcohol, some even argue that it should include neither. But like it or not, this is where the line has been drawn. Should any line have been drawn? If the risk to society is real, then absolutely yes, some line should be drawn. The failure for a society to act in the face of hazard is to elect eventual extinction rather than existence.

This isn't what I was asking for, I know that society via the man has placed laws, that is not what I am asking for. I am asking for what logical reasons would you come to the conclusion to ban marijuana. Medical facts, economic costs, lives, etc etc. You are not thinking the same level I am when I am asking for what logical reason. You are talking a different dimension. Pretend I am a congressman in 1937, you have to convince me that we need to ban marijuana. Do it.

IS RELATIVE RISK THE CRITERION? Now we can deal with your false premise that "relative risk" is the appropriate criterion for comparison. The reason alcohol is legal and marijuana is illegal is not one of relative or comparative risk, but rather one of more mundane practical considerations.

It is hardly a false premise, it is the most logical premise to base it on by any rational means. Cold hard facts, not liberal feeling rhetoric.

Alcohol can be made from products commonly found in all kitchens and grocery stores. Marijuana can not. Alcohol is made from materials that are the basic food stuffs for six billion people. It is ubiquitous. Marijuana is not. Therefore alcohol will always be unavoidably plentiful and available.

Hemp could be commonly found around the US before 1937. It grows quite easily here in the US. Even Thomas Jefferson grew it. However, this premise is still false, as marijuana is still all over the country and is easy to obtain.

Alcohol has long held a myriad of other important uses as a basic substance of the chemical industry, including solvents, fuels, medicines, military uses, etc. Marijuana has no such vital uses. Therefore, alcohol can never be dispensed with in society. Marijuana can be.

Hemp can be used as fuels, marijuana can be used as medicine, hemp can be made into 100s of products including rope, bird seed, and paper.

Alcohol has been the common drug of choice used my more people and more societies over a greater period of history than marijuana. Therefore, alcohol is a far better understood and accepted drug than marijuana.

This is not a logical reason to ban a substance and keep one legal (ignorance of a substance). This goes back to the hypocritical thought I want my drug but you can't have your drug, regardless of the dangers.

These are the practical reasons that, despite any comparative risk assessment, alcohol continues, and will continue, to be legal while marijuana is banned. Your presumption that it just had to be relative risk, is therefore flawed and false.

Ah that is not what I said, I said logically it was the best way and only conclusive way to go about banning a substance. I didn't say there were not other reasons (ignorance, propaganda, uses). I do not consider the others logical reasons, with the exception of uses. However, If you use uses, I can throw a hemp reason back at you for every alcohol use.

But if I understand your position, that would still not remove your more fundamental objections that you have about federal government banning drugs under any theory in the first place. In other words, for you to object to intrastate vs. interstate, is a bit of a red herring, in that you object to both when it comes to banning drug commerce. I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong!

I have a fundamental objection with both, I do not have a constitutional object with both.

By that, I take it you mean that it would then become and example of Congress trespassing on intrastate commerce, correct? How so? State sanctioning and control of all marijuana sales and distribution makes it a single gigantic enterprise, just like organized crime. It would be impossible to have an enterprise that size that was not affecting interstate commerce. The only way to make it legal without the state becoming part of the business would be to simply remove all laws governing marijuana from the books thereby making the state "silent" on the issue (not prohibiting it, not sanctioning it).

This is how they changed the law in 1969 by saying that it was impossible to tell intra-state vs interstate. Before that, it was just assumed the burden of proof would be that State 1 was directly selling it to State 2. Note that it doesn't say people in state 2 cannot buy it in state 1, just a direct selling. Like I ship a case from my store in State 1 to state 2. Much like with dry/alcohol counties today. People from dry counties are still allowed to go purchase alcohol where it is ok to sell.

Poor, yet nevertheless valid, example. Of course simple possession can be made illegal under the interstate commerce theory because the quantity can be so large as to be explained only by its effect upon interstate commerce. The question should be possession of how much? If the amount is less (for instance) 20 pounds, then it would (as I have said before) have no business being controlled under any interstate commerce theory. That tiny portion of the federal enforcement activity would be unconstitutional.

See above. I believe our framers would have said otherwise, they had no intentions for the Feds to expand the Constitution that far to include common law and vice laws.

Actually, I didn't mention smoking! anything, quite possibly another preparation of marijuana could be used medicinally.

That point aside, I still believe that the War On Drugs is nothing more nor less than cynical exercise that is destroying freedom, lives and property without good reason.

For anyone who cares (both of you), I personally have nothing to do with marijuana use or growth, and my alcohol use is miniscule.

It is the attempt to erect so many barriers in deterring abuse that freedom is also caged that disturbs me.

BH: "your solution to the inherent risk of marijuana is that you choose to make it legal, rather than making both illegal thus increasing the cumulative risk to society."

RB: "No, actually that is not what I said, You continue to miss what I said. Let me repost from just the last post."

Unless you are now retracting your original statement, I don't give two hoots in hell what you said in your last post. Your orginal statement said just what I summarized above. Since you so conveniently wish to forget your original statement, I quote it for you here. Read it, study it and then have the honesty to either stand by it or retract it, but my summary of it stands as accurate.

"Marijuana is safer, less addictive and less of a high than alcohol. Since alcohol is legal, its only logical to make marijuana legal as well." -- rb22982 at post #237

You want to play childish word games? Go play with someone else. You want to have an intellectual exchange of ideas? Then drop the goofy game playing like you displayed above. Your choice.

Of course you ignore the rest of the post, but whatever. I'll give you this from a small standpoint. I have said in the past (not on this thread) that the only way would be to make marijuana illegal or to criminalize alcohol.

The reason I didn't state it as such that way is because 1)No one is calling for a return of the 18th amendment (ie no one is asking to outlaw alcohol) 2) most conservatives cringe at the thought of criminalizing their drugs--alcohol and nicotine. Under this basic assumption, I made my statement.

I'd still like to see a response to the majority of my post (if you can), and would still like some (logical) reasons to make marijuana illegal from a medical, uses & economical standpoint.

Basically your entire arguement comes down to, that everything I've said on everything about it from medical, economical, history, etc is wrong because there was one other way to be consistant--even though no one is calling for that.

I'm taking your non-response to the substance of my post to be your way of saying you don't wish to continue.

Uh I responded directly to it. You can take whatever you wish out of it.

Actually, I didn't mention smoking! anything, quite possibly another preparation of marijuana could be used medicinally.

This is precisely what I am talking about.

Apparently, you have not heard of the legal pot-derived medication known as Marinol, which the legalize guys insist doesn't have the same medicinal advantages of lighting up.