Supreme Court allows prosecution of

[Arkady Renko]

While the federal government's laws take precedent over state laws by default, there are restrictions and that's where this case hinged. Unfortunately that battle has been pretty much lost.

 

Again, the late decisions during the New Deal era ended most of the restrictions on federal power within the states. Now many things that should be controlled by the states, like the legal drinking age, has been taken away by the federal government through the blackmail of state aid. Don't want to have a 21 year old limit for drinking, no highway funding, etc. Basically we took away your money but we won't give it back until your state does what we want. Sometimes this works in the favor of my politics, sometimes not, but I regret something was lost in this change.

[Alaska Darin]

While the federal government's laws take precedent over state laws by default, there are restrictions and that's where this case hinged. Unfortunately that battle has been pretty much lost.

 

Again, the late decisions during the New Deal era ended most of the restrictions on federal power within the states. Now many things that should be controlled by the states, like the legal drinking age, has been taken away by the federal government through the blackmail of state aid. Don't want to have a 21 year old limit for drinking, no highway funding, etc. Basically we took away your money but we won't give it back until your state does what we want. Sometimes this works in the favor of my politics, sometimes not, but I regret something was lost in this change.

353026[/snapback]

Mostly because the government of today is WAY too much like the ones the colonists were willing to give their lives to escape.

 

MOTHERment.

[stuckincincy]

Good post. Hope you're feeling OK now...

 

But the funny thing is if you weren't (feeling well from MS) and wanted to ease the pain with the bud of a flower that grows out of the ground, you could get arrested. But pop a pill containing god knows how many chemicals made in a lab? You're safe.

 

Comparing weed to ANY other illegal drug is just ridiculous.

352526[/snapback]

 

However, recreational drugs have their trails of tears. Be advised that the drug you may use came to your posession after a likely legacy of murder, rape, beatings, shake-downs, enabled ultimately by the purchaser.

 

I know marijuana to be pleasurable, same as greasy cheeseburgers, but howeverso, it tends to make one ignore things in one's life that need to be addressed.

 

It does affect the faculties - that's it's appeal - why else use it?, but would you really want it legal such that more folks would drive down the road with the impairment?

 

You are not more aware or erudite under the influnce of any drug, any alcohol. I lost the love of a fine woman who I dated and was devoted to for five years when I was a youth because of such.

 

She was right to toss me on the heap.

[stevestojan]

Actually, that's not even REMOTELY the intent of the Supremes in their ruling.  All they said is that, since under federal law pot is illegal, it is outside the state's scope of powers too make any law that countermands the federal law. 

 

The Supreme Court isn't telling people they can't smoke pot for medicinal purposes, they're telling the states that they can't supercede federal law.  It's the federal law that tells people they can't smoke pot without exception...and that's Congress' (and maybe the White House's; I don't know the history of the legislation) fault.

352968[/snapback]

 

Valid point and I know what you are saying. I wasn't arguing the ruling per se (as I really doubt a federal agent will ever arrest someone in SF for smoking weed). I know the Federal goverenment is basically just making a statement that it won't allow the states to supercede their authority (or at least make the states follow their laws first, and then make them stricter if they choose).

 

My posts were just about the legality in general.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

My posts were just about the legality in general.

353091[/snapback]

 

IF so, then...

 

...However, WHO THE HELL is the supreme court to tell...

 

Was probably misplaced, dontcha think?

 

When it comes to the legality of medical marijuana, I'd probably be inclined to agree with you (particularly in hospice situations, where I've sadly watched marijuana be a big help). But good luck trying to amend the law to include that exemption: either you have to argue it's truly medical, and the FDA gets involved (and probably a few drug companies, and three years and a billion dollars later you have a bunch of pills containing the active ingredients of pot on the market at $1.50 a pop, but pot itself is still illegal), or you argue it's homeopathic or "herbal" in which case no one regulates it...which as a practical matter means you've made it completely legal for all uses, which no one's going for either. Medical marijuana, for better or worse, will remain illegal for quite some time.

[BF_in_Indiana]

The decision has nothing to do with marijuana - but I'm sure CNN didn't tell you that.  It has to do with states making ANYTHING legal that is ILLEGAL at the federal (higher) level.  States are allowed to be more restrictive, but the federal law is the minimum and that's always been.

 

Hence the reason the Legislative branch makes the law.  You want medical marijuana to be legal, take your opposition where it belongs - to your congressional representation.

352959[/snapback]

 

I personally believe it is the right of the states to dictate their own laws. There are plenty of examples of this and this issue should be the same.

[Alaska Darin]

I personally believe it is the right of the states to dictate their own laws.  There are plenty of examples of this and this issue should be the same.

353153[/snapback]

Really? Name one.

[BF_in_Indiana]

Yeah, a guy who served in the military has no perspective but some hayseed from Indiana who's never been with a woman does.  Sure...

352956[/snapback]

 

So it takes a millitary stint to tell someone they should be sucking off a sheep without providing anything relevant to what we are speaking about?

 

I love your assumptions in the latter part of that post as well.

[BF_in_Indiana]

Really?  Name one.

353155[/snapback]

 

Interstate highway speeds. Why is that not under the jurisdiction of the federal government?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Interstate highway speeds.  Why is that not under the jurisdiction of the federal government?

353157[/snapback]

 

You're going to be a complete !@#$ing idiot in this thread again, like the movie downloading one, aren't you?

[Alaska Darin]

Interstate highway speeds.  Why is that not under the jurisdiction of the federal government?

353157[/snapback]

Because in 1994 the Republican controlled Congress repealed the National Speed Limit and in 1995 President Clinton signed it into law. Next.

[BF_in_Indiana]

You're going to be a complete !@#$ing idiot in this thread again, like the movie downloading one, aren't you? 

353162[/snapback]

 

Now now, no need for hostility.

 

I just don't see why the federal government should be in control of one issue but not another.

 

Should states not be given the right as individual entities to allow or disallow something like marijuana use?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Now now, no need for hostility.

 

I just don't see why the federal government should be in control of one issue but not another.

 

Should states not be given the right as individual entities to allow or disallow something like marijuana use?

353166[/snapback]

 

Fine by me. But if you drag Ron Artest into this discussion, I'll knock you into next week and kick your ass on Tuesday.

[BF_in_Indiana]

Fine by me.  But if you drag Ron Artest into this discussion, I'll knock you into next week and kick your ass on Tuesday. 

353173[/snapback]

 

Hey Ron isn't suspended anymore

 

I also feel this way about the gay marraige issue. States should decide how to handle that issue and it shouldn't be controlled by the federal government. If we are going to allow everything to be under the sole juridiction of the federal government, the need for state governments is lost.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Hey Ron isn't suspended anymore

 

I also feel this way about the gay marraige issue.  States should decide how to handle that issue and it shouldn't be controlled by the federal government.  If we are going to allow everything to be under the sole juridiction of the federal government, the need for state governments is lost.

353180[/snapback]

 

I agree with you on the gay marriage issue (the federal government should stay out of it). But the issue of marijuana's nowhere NEAR as clear-cut; there's a long precedent of the federal government staying out of civil law (i.e. marriage), and an equally long one of being involved in the manufacture and distribution of controlled substances (e.g. the Whiskey Rebellion, although less about whiskey than taxation, still began to establish federal authority over controlled substances). So they're fundamentally two different things: on one hand (gay marriage), you're saying you support 200 years of precedent. On the other (drug laws), you're against 200 years of precedent.

 

In other words...swing and a miss. Or a foul tip at best.

[Simon]

Be advised that the drug you may use came to your posession after a likely legacy of murder, rape, beatings, shake-downs, enabled ultimately by the purchaser.

I'd have to disagree and say that any violence associated with the sale/purchase of marijuana is a direct result of it's illegality and therefore the responsibility of the government's draconian laws as opposed to that of the user.

 

I know marijuana to be pleasurable.....howeverso, it tends to make one ignore things in one's life that need to be addressed.

That depends entirely on the user, not the drug. I know plenty of effective professionals from a wide variety of fields who enjoy a pipe on the weekend and excel in thier professions on Monday.

A lazy slug will be a lazy slug, regardless of whether they smoke grass or not.

And a dedicated individual will be just that, regardless of whether they smoke grass or not.

 

but would you really want it legal such that more folks would drive down the road with the impairment?

If you're going to use that argument, then you're going to also have to support the reinstatement of prohibition since alchohol creates far more impairment than marijuana (not to mention addiction, liver failure, brain damage, etc).

 

Cya

[BF_in_Indiana]

I agree with you on the gay marriage issue (the federal government should stay out of it).  But the issue of marijuana's nowhere NEAR as clear-cut; there's a long precedent of the federal government staying out of civil law (i.e. marriage), and an equally long one of being involved in the manufacture and distribution of controlled substances (e.g. the Whiskey Rebellion, although less about whiskey than taxation, still began to establish federal authority over controlled substances).  So they're fundamentally two different things: on one hand (gay marriage), you're saying you support 200 years of precedent.  On the other (drug laws), you're against 200 years of precedent.

 

In other words...swing and a miss.  Or a foul tip at best.

353186[/snapback]

 

I agree with you on all counts actually, but I don't believe it makes it right. The war on "drugs" has caused more violence, murder, and mayhem than many wars and what have we gained from it? Higher taxes, overflowing prisons, shakedowns for 30 dollar bags of herb. At least I can still go get drunk and kill someones loved one on the road though.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I agree with you on all counts actually, but I don't believe it makes it right.  The war on "drugs" has caused more violence, murder, and mayhem than many wars and what have we gained from it?  Higher taxes, overflowing prisons, shakedowns for 30 dollar bags of herb.  At least I can still go get drunk and kill someones loved one on the road though.

353195[/snapback]

 

Now this is just getting disturbing...

 

I just want to confirm for the reading public that, despite being all nice and agreeable to each other in this thread, BF and I still loathe each other to the point of physical illness...

[BF_in_Indiana]

Now this is just getting disturbing...

 

I just want to confirm for the reading public that, despite being all nice and agreeable to each other in this thread, BF and I still loathe each other to the point of physical illness... 

353231[/snapback]

 

Well maybe you do.........

[pkwwjd]

Because in 1994 the Republican controlled Congress repealed the National Speed Limit and in 1995 President Clinton signed it into law.  Next.

353163[/snapback]

Even before then IIRC, the only reason to abide by the national speed limit was to receive federal funding. If a state wanted to go to 65, they forfeited the funding. BUT it was legal for them to do so. Again, I may be mistaken, but that was my understanding.