0
skydiver007

Case of Pot- Majority vs Liberty

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Why are unjust laws at state level better than unjust laws at national level? A bad law is a bad law no matter who enforces it.



Probably because there is a better chance of getting them changed at the state level. Look at how many states and municipalities have enacted liberal marijuana laws that disagree with the draconian federal laws.



But the Feds continue to declare those laws invalid.

Their new stance with the SF pot clubs will be to threaten the property owners (usually not the pot clubs) with seizure. I'm a bit mixed on this - these clubs are supposed to be for medical use, but that's a farce and the crime element around this form isn't much better than the underground. It's not even a half assed version of legalization and doesn't work well.

The OP might consider relocating if feasible. I smell pot in the apartment hallways 2-3 times a week, coming from one or both of 2 of my neighbors. None of us care - well, I think we got some stoners, but I don't need police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So in your opinion they deserve to be ridiculed and laughed at for being stupid? I'm sure you don't mean that, right?



No, not ridiculed. But, it's like trying to smuggle drugs into Indonesia. Dammit, everyone knows that they'll execute you for it. I'll argue that said law is unjust and draconian - from a safe distance. I sure as hell will not position myself to have to make this argument AFTER getting pinched.

Quote

Why are unjust laws at state level better than unjust laws at national level?



Because you can move to another state without losing the privileges and immunities of being an American citizen. I don't like the laissez faire government of New Hampshire? Okay. I'll move to Massachussetts or Vermont. I want to be able to be a male prostitute without fear of criminal prosecution? I can move to Nevada.

The federal government has, however, enforced criminal liability for possession and use of pot when the state has de-criminalized that activity. So I cannot move to Oregon or Montana to do what I wish. The feds, on the grounds of the impact to interstate commerce of wholly intrastate activities, has made this so.

Here is an explanation from Clarence Thomas about how he thinks it is ridiculous, and explaining what the SCOTUS found when it said it was constitutional to have federal intervention of intrastate possession and cultivation of marijuana.

Quote

The majority's newfound understanding of the CSA as a statute of limited reach is all the more puzzling because it rests upon constitutional principles that the majority of the Court rejected in Raich. Notwithstanding the States' " 'traditional police powers to define the criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens,' ", the Raich majority concluded that the CSA applied to the intrastate possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes authorized by California law because "Congress could have rationally" concluded that such an application was necessary to the regulation of the "larger interstate marijuana market." Here, by contrast, the majority's restrictive interpretation of the CSA is based in no small part on "the structure and limitations of federalism, which allow the States ' "great latitude under their police powers to legislate as to the protection of the lives, limbs, health, comfort, and quiet of all persons." According to the majority, these "background principles of our federal system ... belie the notion that Congress would use ... an obscure grant of authority to regulate areas traditionally supervised by the States' police power..."

Of course there is nothing "obscure" about the CSA's grant of authority to the Attorney General... And, the Attorney General's conclusion that the CSA prohibits the States from authorizing physician assisted suicide is admittedly "at least reasonable," ... and is therefore entitled to deference... While the scope of the CSA and the Attorney General's power thereunder are sweeping, and perhaps troubling, such expansive federal legislation and broad grants of authority to administrative agencies are merely the inevitable and inexorable consequence of this Court's Commerce Clause and separation-of-powers jurisprudence...

I agree with limiting the applications of the CSA in a manner consistent with the principles of federalism and our constitutional structure. Raich, supra, at ___ (Thomas, J., dissenting); cf. Whitman, supra, at 486-487 (Thomas, J., concurring) (noting constitutional concerns with broad delegations of authority to administrative agencies). But that is now water over the dam. The relevance of such considerations was at its zenith in Raich, when we considered whether the CSA could be applied to the intrastate possession of a controlled substance consistent with the limited federal powers enumerated by the Constitution. Such considerations have little, if any, relevance where, as here, we are merely presented with a question of statutory interpretation, and not the extent of constitutionally permissible federal power. This is particularly true where, as here, we are interpreting broad, straightforward language within a statutory framework that a majority of this Court has concluded is so comprehensive that it necessarily nullifies the States' " 'traditional ... powers ... to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.'




My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Why are unjust laws at state level better than unjust laws at national level? A bad law is a bad law no matter who enforces it.



Probably because there is a better chance of getting them changed at the state level. Look at how many states and municipalities have enacted liberal marijuana laws that disagree with the draconian federal laws.



Used to be the case, but the federal government - thanks to it's "New Deal" re-interpretation of the commerce clause, allows the feds to regulate a person pissing in his backyard. If everyone did it, it could affect interstate commerce.

I argued that what you say abotu state control is the way it SHOULD have remained - until the tide started changing in the early 1900's and REALLY changed in the 1930's-1960's.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least you didnt get aerrested. Pot should be legal. It is not unfortunatly, so we have to deal with the consequences. I believe one day it will be legal. If alcohol is legal, it makes not sense why pot isnt. Unil then...smoke on my brotha :)
7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem with those sites and among others not neccessairly related but use the cotton conspiracy: You gather all that information and evidence and you march onto Washington in hopes of bringing legalization up for a vote when. . .all the elected officials that listen to the testimony suddenly remember the Sixties and Seventies. They were Parents during that time. Some may have been the affected youth of the time; long since grown out of the haze and dullness required to believe in the various failed philosophies. They will remember the Pot and all of a sudden all those pamphlets, websites and testimonials will be tossed out for real-world reality. The most destructive case against pot is the very same generation and decades that brought out it's popularity. Best bet. Wait till the children of the Ninties are in power to bring it back up. Those kids were using pot to pretend they were Hippies. They may still have the poser 70's reminiscence in them to change stuff.

Skydiver007: Careful with that Anarchism stuff. Within Anarchy there's hundreds of charismatic leaders waiting to break out. Funny thing that Anarchy. All anarchists want to be leaders.
_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Amen brother. If you're not too stoned...

Here's some Noam Chomsky for ya...;)


Unfortunately this may be the end of my contribution on this topic (I don't read SC) which is where this will be in...
3....2....1....



Chomsky, one of the great thinkers of our times, though a bit of a verbose speaker. Always entertaining, often enlightening.

I think I might have first seen it here, but one of my favorites related to democracy versus liberty:

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding to have mutton for dinner. Liberty is the sheep showing up for dinner armed to the teeth.

Democracy is worthless without liberty. Even the inventors of the concept knew that nearly 3K years ago. Liberty is the only thing that keeps democracy from turning into group tyranny.

Which is related only as a thin tangent to the issue of what each autonomous political unit decides is legal or not. That thin tangent is your opportunity at election time to throw out the bums who refuse you the liberty to light up a joint in private. Vote them out. All of them. If the next group doesn't change things, vote them all out again.

I think this has great potential for grass roots politics. How many cycles of voting every single politician out of office do you think it would take before they would get the message? And if you can not get enough votes to do so, then maybe the coalition isn't as big as you think.

You are then free to take the habit underground, openly revolt against your government, or move to where you are not persecuted.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually think you will find that is a Concensus WAS taken, pot smokers would be in the minority



I'm in the non-pot smoking majority myself. Used to smoke it thirty years ago, but it now has no place in my life. But I still think adults should be free to use it if they like. I also think they should be held accountable for their behavior when they do use it - DWI's on the weed should be treated exactly the same as alcohol DWI's.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

DWI's on the weed should be treated exactly the same as alcohol DWI's.



I disagree. Multiple (credible) studies have indicated that impairment from cannabis is minimal in comparison to impairment from alcohol use. The effects of smoking heavily affect driving on a magnitude similar to taking over the counter cold medicines as directed. Furthermore, drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to perceive their impairment and compensate for it. There is no reason to treat driving under the influence of the two very different substances the same.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Problem with those sites and among others not neccessairly related but use the cotton conspiracy



Your statement leads me to believe that you have not read through the ASA website. ASA is the major leading force for legalizing medical mj. They have been the spearhead in bringing about change by use of medical research. Cotton conspiracy? Not sure what cotton has to do with patients who find relief and quality of life with marijuana as opposed to being stuck in a stupor with the narcotics that the pharm corporations have pushed for years.
Your statements also leads me to believe that those at the top for legalization are dazed hippies. So far from the truth is such a belief. Those at NORML are not drugged out hippies. Those at ASA are not drugged out hippies. Those at L.E.A.P. are not drugged out hippies. These people are highly succesful professionals. Those at L.E.A.P. are law enforcement professionals. NORML is backed up with lawyers, judges, and a slew of succesful professionals. There is truth that some of those at the ground level are in fact hippies it I do believe that it hurts the cause. The last time I spoke with attorney Dan Veit, the man responsible with bringing about change in Columbia, Mo., agrees that image change is instrumental in order to change the minds of the politicians who fail to see the legitimate cause. One can argue that the powerful narcotics that are routinely pushed by the pharm companies only contribute to drug addiction and overdoses. In fact, they do. There are far more deaths contributed to legal narcotics than there are to illegal marijuana. In fact, there has never been a marijuana overdose. In fact, marijuana is not even an addictive drug.
I prefer that the choice be mine when it comes to treating my condition and not that of narco-pushers.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

DWI's on the weed should be treated exactly the same as alcohol DWI's.



I disagree. Multiple (credible) studies have indicated that impairment from cannabis is minimal in comparison to impairment from alcohol use. The effects of smoking heavily affect driving on a magnitude similar to taking over the counter cold medicines as directed. Furthermore, drivers under the influence of cannabis tend to perceive their impairment and compensate for it. There is no reason to treat driving under the influence of the two very different substances the same.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990325110700.htm
http://www.fcda.org/driving.htm

A study of mj only and driving;
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/dot78_1.htm

A study of mj combined with alcohol and driving;
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/Marijuana%20-Alcohol%20Driving%20Study%20--%20DOT%20HS%20808%20939.htm
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all of the studies that were done by the feds and were scraped because they did not prove the goverments case that marijuana was the leading cause of automobile accidents, the feds have continued to bring up this one study as the difinitive study to prove, without doubt, that marijuana is an extremely dangerous drug.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol11N1/Marijuana.html
From the study;
This behavioral pattern in the personal backgrounds of marijuana-smoking employees was associated with negative attitudes toward work and job performance, Dr. Lehman said. The surveys found that marijuana users were less likely than nonusers to commit to the organization, had less faith in management, and experienced low job satisfaction. These workers reported more absenteeism, tardiness, accidents, workers' compensation claims, and job turnover than workers who had not used marijuana. They were also more likely to report to work with a hangover, miss work because of a hangover, and be drunk or use drugs at work. (alcoholism is the result of marijuana smoking?:S )

These data indicate that marijuana use is strongly associated with problematic alcohol:S use and a pattern of general deviance that leads to impaired behaviors and poor workplace performance, Dr. Lehman concluded.

Dr. Lehman needs to pull his head from his ass as having such stuck in such a dark place leads to a problematic outcome.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The cotton reference reflects the beliefs some people have that mj was made illegal by lobbying of the cotton industry.

I am saying those in power remember their college age daze or their children's rebellion, then, not they are still smoking now.
My response was not directed as me believing those sites not credible, but the fact that those sites may not be taken seriously by those in office. They were there too.
You can find various professionals from all walks of life to represent any type of belief. Professionals backing up these matters does not give the argument more weight. You need majority in on it. If you match professional to professional on both sides of the issue you may find that there is an unequal amount backing.
_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0