BF_in_Indiana Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 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. 353497[/snapback] I believe you are correct. No state was going to forefit federal aid though so in reality the Feds were still in control with legalized blackmail going on there basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 "Medical Marijuana" is a joke in SF. The clubs have quack doctors that will write a "prescription" for any malady. They are just pot smoking clubs now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 "Medical Marijuana" is a joke in SF. The clubs have quack doctors that will write a "prescription" for any malady. They are just pot smoking clubs now. 353565[/snapback] And yet the entire fabric of society hasn't completely ripped apart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 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] Just a question, CTW: Is poligamy considered against federal law, or is it decided by all 50 states? Wouldn't that be an example of the fed being involved in civil law? Can Mormons have more than one wife? Actually, I decided to Google it myself, (GG appreciates the support ) and found that it seems to be unlawful at the state AND federal level. Bigamy: Crime of marrying during the continuance of a lawful marriage... The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1878 that plurality of wives (polygamy), as originally permitted by the Mormon religion, violated criminal law and was not defensible as an exercise of religious liberty. All 50 states have statutes against bigamy (multiple licensed marriages). In most states, bigamy is a felony. But it is only a misdemeanor in Alaska! Really. source: polygamy Jeez, all I wanted to do is plant my own herb garden and look where this conversation has gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 And yet the entire fabric of society hasn't completely ripped apart? 353575[/snapback] Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude thats deep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 The interstate commerce clause died with the New Deal. 352097[/snapback] I wrote the following concerning the Supremes' decision in the other medical marijuana thread but it applies to your statement: What is interesting is that they distinguish this case from Lopez and Morrison (which I argued in a mock court in law school). Lopez was the seminal case in "modern commerce clause" jurisprudence that overturned over 60 years of cases stemming from Wickard v. Filburn. With the development of the "modern commerce clause" the 1964 Civil Rights ACt may not have passed if Congress had done so with this Court. In this context it is interesting how the "Gun Free Zone Act" in Lopez and the "Violence Against Women Act" in Morrison do not pass Constitutional muster, yet the federal law prohibiting Marijuana does. On the face of it, under these line of cases, Congress was not empowered to enact that legislation. To me the interstate commerce clause under Wickard v. Filburn allowed the Congress to enact groundbreaking legislation that broke Jim Crow, allowed for the New Deal which helped lift the U.S. into one of its more prosperous periods, outlawed employment discrimination etc. Now, with Lopez and Morrison that is no longer possible under the new federalism of the Renquist Court (except when it is politically convenient to deviate from their federalism crusade - i.e. Bush v. Gore). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 And yet the entire fabric of society hasn't completely ripped apart? 353575[/snapback] you haven't been in SF for a while, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 you haven't been in SF for a while, have you? 353661[/snapback] 10 years - and hopefully never again. Pot is the least of that city's problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 8, 2005 Share Posted June 8, 2005 Just a question, CTW: Is poligamy considered against federal law, or is it decided by all 50 states? Wouldn't that be an example of the fed being involved in civil law? Can Mormons have more than one wife? Actually, I decided to Google it myself, (GG appreciates the support ) and found that it seems to be unlawful at the state AND federal level. But it is only a misdemeanor in Alaska! Really. source: polygamy Jeez, all I wanted to do is plant my own herb garden and look where this conversation has gone. 353590[/snapback] I want to know more about the background of the Supreme Court's decision...it sounds like there'd be more to it than that. The only valid reason the SC has (had) to get involved in the case of polygamy is the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution; there was an issue of whether a polygamous marriage in Utah could or should be legally recognized by a state where polygamy was illegal - the same issue that's ultimately going to force the gay marriage issue in front of the SC, where they'll probably decide that gay marriage is illegal at the federal level based on the polygamy precedent and in violation of the separation of powers. Frankly, I disagree with the court's decision on polygamy, and will disagree when they decide the same for gay marriage. HOWEVER...if they decided otherwise (in favor of separation of powers in a way that opens the full faith and credit clause to question), I'd still disagree (though not as strongly, as I don't believe full faith and credit should be as binding as separation of powers). Basically, I think the court's wrong...but I don't have the right answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Pharmaceutical industry is the establishment... Kinda reminds me of John Harrison's story and the quest to solve the longitude problem... All the while the science community had the ears of the crown... And would be damned that a mechanical solution could solve the problem! Not saying I would give my kid weed for the pain of a broken elbow... But, the Tylenol with codeine they gave him was a son of a pup... I don't know what was worse, the constipation or the pain from the elbow! Good book... Longitude Back to your regularly scheduled program... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Why do they call dope dope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Why do they call dope dope? 354162[/snapback] Because "Pass the beausox" is too hard to say when you're stoned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beausox Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Because "Pass the beausox" is too hard to say when you're stoned... 354191[/snapback] Ah! Another ad hominem attack. How unusual! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Ah! Another ad hominem attack. How unusual! 354199[/snapback] Hey, look...you wrote something coherent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Because "Pass the beausox" is too hard to say when you're stoned... 354191[/snapback] that is classic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 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. 353497[/snapback] That is accurate. For states that didn't make the max speed limit 55 mph, their grant-in-aid funding for highways would be witheld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Because "Pass the beausox" is too hard to say when you're stoned... My wife was wondering when you'd be coming over to clean the CountryTime lemonade off my monitor..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts