Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marijuana Ballot Issues Have Little To Do With Drugs
Shout Bits Blog ^ | 07/30/2012 | Shout Bits

Posted on 07/30/2012 10:38:42 AM PDT by Shout Bits

This November, as many as eight States will have marijuana ballot issues before their voters. Most are medicinal issues, but States like Oregon and Colorado will decide on full legalization. Just as judging the average alcohol drinker by observing gutter drunks is unfounded, most marijuana users are not actually wild smelly Occupy Wall Street hippies (as annoying as they can be). Pollsters estimate that 25 million Americans regularly consume marijuana, and there simply are not enough Rasta cab drivers and jazz fans to fill those ranks. Politically, the tide is turning in favor of recreational marijuana use, but for the 90% of Americans who are not regular partakers, the marijuana issue has more impact than getting high. In fact, the marijuana issue is a test bed for the entirety of the wrongs Washington imposes on the States and the People.

Marijuana has, of course, been proven to be medically benign. Contrary to government propaganda, marijuana does not engender violent or dangerous behavior – unlike tequila. Further, the drug's use does not seem to rise or fall based on its legality. In The Netherlands, where marijuana is more or less legal, its use is less prevalent than in the US, where marijuana is mostly illegal. Dreamers who think states can balance their budgets by taxing marijuana like tobacco or booze will be disappointed as marijuana usage cannot generate a large tax base as do cigarettes and liquor. Those who foresee a fall in crime as the illegal profit is eliminated are also overly optimistic. Until all vices are legal and regulated, cartels will still trade in violence. In short, should marijuana become legal in the US, expect essentially no impact.

Why, then is the marijuana issue relevant? The marijuana issue brings the 10th Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Supremacy Clause to a poignant head and is a colorful wedge for those who generally support individual liberty and responsibility. Washington's corruption withers in the light of the marijuana issue.

In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that FDR's multi-year attempt to help farmers by forcing them to farm less acreage than they wanted was constitutional. They held that even if farm produce were grown in a single state with seed, fertilizer, and water from only that state, for consumption intrastate, the Commerce clause allowed Washington to dictate any aspect of that farm's operation because the activities of the farm might affect markets out of state. Nothing had to cross state lines to be regulated as interstate commerce. Fast forward 80 years, and this same logic (under a different name) allows Washington to force individuals to buy a minimum level of healthcare products. For those who think Washington knows best, these rulings are wonderful news, but for the libertarian they invite tyranny.

Regardless of Supreme Court decisions, the plain language and original intent of the Commerce Clause is to ensure that states do not enact trade barriers between themselves. It does not say that commerce may be regulated within a state; it does not say that the commerce of individuals may be regulated. The Commerce Clause puts regulating interstate commerce at the same level as trade with foreign nations and Indian tribes, clearly implying that Washington's role is to facilitate free trade, not to dictate how many acres a farmer may plant. Quite often the plain language reading of a law is truer than the convolutions of talented specialist minds.

FDR outlawed marijuana about the same time as he regulated farmers and under the same Commerce Clause authority (in the form of a tax, if that sounds familiar). Indeed, most of Washington's departures from the Constitution's enumerated powers stem from the abuse of the Commerce Clause. Should a State fully legalize marijuana this November, the very heart of Washington's bloat will be tested. Interestingly, Justice Roberts's horrid logic that Obamacare was illegal under the Commerce Clause but legal as a tax gains traction in such a showdown. Should a State's perfect document, its Constitution, be amended to legalize marijuana, that State would be obligated to take the issue to the Supreme Court unless Washington backs down. The marijuana issue may give libertarians another swipe at the Commerce Clause, a gift given by States broadly in favor of Obamacare.

Can Washington imprison someone for growing a plant in Colorado using Colorado materials, all for Colorado or even personal consumption? Is there any boundary to Washington's power over the States and the People? Is Washington's law supreme over a State's, even when Washington's law is not authorized under the Constitution? Does the 10th Amendment mean anything? Should marijuana be legalized somewhere this November, these questions might be revisited and the tide of Washington's tyranny over its purported masters could be reversed. Even for those who find the herbal libation distasteful, these are good reasons to vote to legalize marijuana.

Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/ShoutBits


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: drugs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last

1 posted on 07/30/2012 10:38:49 AM PDT by Shout Bits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Shout Bits; humblegunner; Eaker; TheOldLady; Old Sarge; DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis; Markos33; ...

Just a guess here, but I don’t think you’re going to find a highly receptive audience on this forum for your pro-drug agenda, no matter how you couch it Constitutional rhetoric.

Like I said, just a guess .....


2 posted on 07/30/2012 10:51:07 AM PDT by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shout Bits

the real result will be all the potheads who will kill people with car crashes.

Employers will simply drug test everyone and NOBODY will be hired who smokes pot. Driving while impared laws will be extended to allow longer detentions while blood and hair samples are taken.

Anyone who is perscribed pot should be ineligible to drive, own a gun, operate any machinery (heavy or light), etc.


3 posted on 07/30/2012 10:57:00 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I was wondering about that... if that drug is legal in my state (OR), can I discriminate in hiring against those who use it? Screen for THC even though it is legal?

I agree about DUI. They will have to be able to test for impairment, establish legal limits, etc.


4 posted on 07/30/2012 11:00:13 AM PDT by Rio (Tempis fugit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shout Bits
Relaxing marijuana laws won't help lift our nation out of it's current lameness, but if people want to smoke the cheebah, let's remember that even Sgt. Joe Friday from 'Dragnet' told those psychadelic hippies wearing rose-lensed granny glasses that they were obligated to obey the law until they changed the law regarding dangerous and illegal marihuana.

Well, now the laws regarding pot are changing.

No matter how many anecdotal accounts I hear from stoners about how they all know some hyper-achieving pot smoker -- and gosh, don't they all have a friend like that -- I still think that marijuana use turns you into a lame-ass.

Hell, just look at Michael Phelps. He won eight gold medals in the last Olympics, discovered marijuana, and now he's rubbish. I won't blame marijuana for his loss, but I bet there were plenty of times that he could have been training in the pool but he decided to get high instead.

5 posted on 07/30/2012 11:00:29 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
Here's one.

If a government can proscribe a weed, it can certainly proscribe say, ammunition or the components of ammunition.

We must be concerned with the health and safety of our population, mustn't we?

6 posted on 07/30/2012 11:00:34 AM PDT by Aevery_Freeman (All Y'all White Peoples is racist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Anyone who is perscribed pot should be ineligible to drive, own a gun, operate any machinery (heavy or light), etc.

Hell Yes! And also anyone who drinks beer. Or wine.

Those scumbags are a threat to us all, and by extension, to all humanity.

7 posted on 07/30/2012 11:04:40 AM PDT by humblegunner (Pablo, being wily, pities the fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rio

Since it is legal to not hire tobacco smokers it should be doubly important to be able to exclude pot smokers. In fact it would be a marketing bonus. It may also be a liability insurnce REQUIREMENT to exclude pot smokers.

There is no DWI/DUI pot test for the roadside. Generally, the pot smoker simply drives impaired and kills pedestrians and other drivers. The most efficient solution is to pull the license of medicinal pot users.


8 posted on 07/30/2012 11:05:24 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
Just a guess here, but I don’t think you’re going to find a highly receptive audience on this forum for your pro-drug agenda, no matter how you couch it Constitutional rhetoric.

Yeah, plus he leaves out a lot of the negatives regarding Marijuana. It tends to make people worthless and lazy, thereby requiring support from other people, and it also serves as a "gateway" drug when the THC high just isn't enough anymore.

Apart from that, it appears the Netherlands, everyone's favorite example of a legal drug environment, has decided to make Marijuana use illegal for foreigners. They will still tolerate it for their own citizens, but gone are the days when visitors can go to Amsterdam and buy pot.

I'm really sick of hearing libertarians constantly suggesting that keeping drugs illegal is tantamount to tyranny. They need to stop acting like little children and grow up.

9 posted on 07/30/2012 11:06:04 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

“Just a guess here, but I don’t think you’re going to find a highly receptive audience on this forum for your pro-drug agenda, no matter how you couch it Constitutional rhetoric.

Like I said, just a guess .....”

I am sure you are right, but my objective is not preach to the choir. If people in OK don’t want legalized MJ, that is quite fine with me. If people in OR or CO do, that is equally fine. That is the reason why we have sovereign states subordinate to Washington in only certain matters that the states so authorized (or so it should be).

I and the article are not pro-drug, BTW. Libertarians are pro liberty and personal responsibility. We do not look to the government to protect us from ourselves. That is the issue, and I regret I did make it more clear.


10 posted on 07/30/2012 11:07:44 AM PDT by Shout Bits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

I thing legalizing marijuana will impact crime significantly, although it certainly won’t eliminate it.

It will be a serious loss of business or competition increase to the drug cartels.


11 posted on 07/30/2012 11:08:46 AM PDT by planet87
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

THC is not alochol. We also have actual testing and laws for that consumption. You don’t drink at gun ranges. You have instant DWI breath tests. Pot, contrary to myth, always destroys.


12 posted on 07/30/2012 11:09:31 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Aevery_Freeman
If a government can proscribe a weed, it can certainly proscribe say, ammunition or the components of ammunition.

No they can't. Ownership of such items is specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution under Amendment II. Apart from that, drug usage is an activity that constitutes a reckless endangerment to the public.

We must be concerned with the health and safety of our population, mustn't we?

Absolutely. Just as we control the spread of diseases, we must also keep the spread of this disease (drug usage) under control.

13 posted on 07/30/2012 11:11:07 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Shout Bits

stand by to be called a dope smoking hooker loving fag in 3...2...1...


14 posted on 07/30/2012 11:14:43 AM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Hate to break it to you buddy, but the potheads are already on the roads right now. They’re the ones driving 5 mph under the speed limit looking paranoid.


15 posted on 07/30/2012 11:17:25 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shout Bits
I am sure you are right, but my objective is not preach to the choir. If people in OK don’t want legalized MJ, that is quite fine with me. If people in OR or CO do, that is equally fine. That is the reason why we have sovereign states subordinate to Washington in only certain matters that the states so authorized (or so it should be).

This is your best argument, (that it is within the domain of the states to decide) but it does however fall short. Perhaps not with Marijuana, but when you extend the principle behind it to other drugs, an argument emerges for defacto Federal involvement in interdiction.

Regarding such drugs as Opium, Heroin, Cocaine, etc. they generally come from foreign countries. It is beyond the ability of a state to operate in this environment, and therefore it requires a Federal approach to deal with it. Now you may ask, "On what basis can you justify Federal involvement in interdicting drug shipments into the states?"

The Federal government has a mandate to provide for the defense of the country. If drugs are regarded as an existential threat to the security of the nation, (which I argue that they are) then the Federal government has a duty to involve itself in the protection of our nation from this dangerous low-intensity attack. Just as we interdict nerve gas, biological warfare agents, or nuclear fissionable material, so too must we protect the nation against dangerous lesser agents.

Marijuana really doesn't reach the threshold of dangerousness that other drugs constitute, but it is however included in the threat list due to it's classification as a drug. The largest danger it represents is the tendency of others to use it as justification for the legalization of drugs as an acceptable principle.

16 posted on 07/30/2012 11:20:59 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

“There is no DWI/DUI pot test for the roadside.”

There’s a general impairment test isn’t there? Touch your nose, walk the dotted line, etc?

If that test isn’t catching the potheads, then either the test needs to be updated, or those potheads that are passing it are not that impaired.


17 posted on 07/30/2012 11:21:41 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

The “Constitutional rhetoric” is dead on, and “it’s about pot” won’t make it go away.


18 posted on 07/30/2012 11:23:56 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: shibumi
Maybe we could try a plan where the country is divided up into different regions where things like the pluses and minuses of marijuana prohibition could be decided on a small scale, test case basis, instead of having all the rules come from Washington DC.

I'm thinking that about, say, fifty such regions would be a good number.

Is this too radical a concept for FR these days??

19 posted on 07/30/2012 11:26:49 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“Apart from that, drug usage is an activity that constitutes a reckless endangerment to the public.”

Well it CAN constitute, but that doesn’t mean it always or even usually does constitute such a danger. For example, a guy sitting in his boxer shorts eating cereal and smoking a bong while he watches cartoons on a Saturday morning doesn’t constitute any such danger.

If just the possibly of constituting a danger is enough, then we aught to ban alcohol as well. All those six packs sitting in fridges across the US could be ticking time bombs.


20 posted on 07/30/2012 11:29:41 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
No they can't. Ownership of such items is specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution under Amendment II. Apart from that, drug usage is an activity that constitutes a reckless endangerment to the public.

The Second Amendment didn't stop the Assault Weapons Ban, and pronunciations of "reckles endangerment" do not enumerate powers.

The New Deal "substantial effects" interpretation of the Commerce Clause is a very real threat to your RKBA, and you're blind if you can't see that.

21 posted on 07/30/2012 11:30:41 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“The largest danger it represents is the tendency of others to use it as justification for the legalization of drugs as an acceptable principle.”

Well, that’s the fault of the people who classify it as a drug, isn’t it?


22 posted on 07/30/2012 11:32:59 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
Hell Yes! And also anyone who drinks beer. Or wine.

Look 'gunner

Some "conservatives" are just fine with expanding government, militarizing the police, trampling the fourth and tenth amendments and perverting the Commerce Clause so long as it is directed at citizens they disagree with. And you will see a lot of excuses to justify all that too. Not many facts though.

Besides, those same "conservatives" drink wine and beer, so that's different.

Got it?

23 posted on 07/30/2012 11:34:53 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

I’m thinking your guess is wrong.

I am firmly for the pro-drug agenda. Legalize all of it.

Every argument you make sounds to me like the arguments made by the anti-gunners - return to the Wild West, blood in the streets as cartels take over, etc.

For every loss of individual freedom due to the war on drugs, you are to blame.


24 posted on 07/30/2012 11:34:53 AM PDT by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Interesting idea. We should have a name for that. I propose “republic”.


25 posted on 07/30/2012 11:36:09 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All

Be a man, humblegunner, shibumi, and whatever else you call yourself.

You are the same poster under two different screen names, at least. Many know that you do this already, most do not.

Stop posting with multiple screen names on the same thread pushing the same opinion.


26 posted on 07/30/2012 11:39:41 AM PDT by AlmaKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Shout Bits; 50mm; darkwing104; Arrowhead1952; Darksheare; TheOldLady; Lady Jag; Chode; shibumi; ...

Blog Pimp?


27 posted on 07/30/2012 11:57:12 AM PDT by Old Sarge (We are now officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Well it CAN constitute, but that doesn’t mean it always or even usually does constitute such a danger. For example, a guy sitting in his boxer shorts eating cereal and smoking a bong while he watches cartoons on a Saturday morning doesn’t constitute any such danger.

If just the possibly of constituting a danger is enough, then we aught to ban alcohol as well. All those six packs sitting in fridges across the US could be ticking time bombs.

More so than you may realize. In my family there has been a long association between tragedy and alcohol. The stuff kills 100,000 people per year, and is in reality more dangerous than is pot. We did try banning it, but humanity has a many thousand year old history with the stuff, and the effort to get rid of it did not reckon with how ingrained it was within some societies.

Be that as it may, Marijuana is not harmless. I know several people who are just worthless slugs because all they want to do is get high. Marijuana seemingly renders some portion of the population useless to themselves and as a result, usually needing the support of society. (As with the pot smokers I know.)

Presumably there are some people who can smoke the stuff AND maintain a functional lifestyle, and for such people as these I see no larger problem for society. However, we make laws that apply to everybody, and we cannot accept the principle that laws should apply to some one way, and to others a different way. The conclusion is, if some significant portion of the population cannot use something responsibly, we either have to ban it for everyone, or somehow license it to people who will not misuse it.

That is the situation in a nutshell.

28 posted on 07/30/2012 11:59:39 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Shout Bits
Interesting that these referendums are coming up in Red States, with the exception of Montana. WA, OR, CO, MN, MA and even Detroit will be voting on this. Seems like the Dems are afraid voters will stay home for the next Pres election so they got something else interesting to get the vote out...just like they did with the gay marriage vote in CA during the last Pres election. Wonder what the percentage of pro-legalized cannabis voters are Dems, maybe 85% of them? Who will undoubtedly pull the BHO lever while they are in there getting their weed freak on.
29 posted on 07/30/2012 12:08:22 PM PDT by squeegee boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The Second Amendment didn't stop the Assault Weapons Ban, and pronunciations of "reckles endangerment" do not enumerate powers.

It's existence made those who supported the ban on semi-automatic firearms pay for their temerity. Second Amendment activists were woke up by that Clinton Era piece of legislation, and as a result turned the Democrats out of Congress, and then proceeded to enact gun carry laws all across the land. They have subsequently pursued protection of gun rights through the courts until we have reached the point where the Highest court itself has issued a decisions solidifying the legal protection for individuals to own and carry firearms. The Second Amendment has attained the highest level of protection for the rights it guarantees for the first time in a hundred years.

The New Deal "substantial effects" interpretation of the Commerce Clause is a very real threat to your RKBA, and you're blind if you can't see that.

I do not disagree with you here. Wickard v. Filburn has emerged as a great threat to freedom in this nation, but excessive misuse of the commerce clause is not a valid issue regarding drug usage. Drugs fall into the catagory of attack upon the nation, and their interdiction is justified under the national defense portion of the U.S. Constitution. Just as we ban nerve gas, biological agents, and fissionable Uranium, so to do we have the right and the authority to ban dangerous substances that constitute a threat to our nations ability to defend itself.

Drugs are dangerous, and if not stopped, they will destroy our Nation, the way Opium destroyed the Nation of China. They constitute a military threat, not an argument about where the commerce powers begin and end.

30 posted on 07/30/2012 12:10:46 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

“Blog Pimp?”
Every once in a while I get this. Yes, I wrote the blog entry and posted it in its entirety to FR. My intent is to get more people to read the blog, but why write one at all if that is not part of the goal? AFAIK, I comply will all the FR guidelines.

I do not apologize at all.


31 posted on 07/30/2012 12:12:14 PM PDT by Shout Bits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
Well, that’s the fault of the people who classify it as a drug, isn’t it?

Maybe so, but it has been so classified for most of a 100 years, and now it is simply accepted that it is.

32 posted on 07/30/2012 12:13:53 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
we either have to ban it for everyone, or somehow license it to people who will not misuse it.

We can do either one, but the question of what we should do is a different question than which division of government is legitimately authorized to do it under the Constitution.

33 posted on 07/30/2012 12:15:24 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
the real result will be all the potheads who will kill people with car crashes.

Study shows medical marijuana laws reduce traffic deaths; Leads to lower consumption of alcohol"

Anyone who is perscribed pot should be ineligible to drive, own a gun, operate any machinery (heavy or light), etc.

So should the same apply to alcohol?

34 posted on 07/30/2012 12:20:00 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
Maybe we could try a plan where the country is divided up into different regions where things like the pluses and minuses of marijuana prohibition could be decided on a small scale, test case basis, instead of having all the rules come from Washington DC.

I'm thinking that about, say, fifty such regions would be a good number.

Is this too radical a concept for FR these days??

You can SAY you're only lighting your field on fire over on your side of the boundary, but should I object because of the possibility that your fire won't STAY on your side of the boundary?

35 posted on 07/30/2012 12:20:08 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

So do you support the Tenth Amendment authority of states to regulate intrastate mj - yes or no?


36 posted on 07/30/2012 12:23:59 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: squeegee boy

“Interesting that these referendums are coming up in Red States, with the exception of Montana. WA, OR, CO, MN, MA and even Detroit will be voting on this. Seems like the Dems are afraid voters will stay home for the next Pres election so they got something else interesting to get the vote out...just like they did with the gay marriage vote in CA during the last Pres election. Wonder what the percentage of pro-legalized cannabis voters are Dems, maybe 85% of them? Who will undoubtedly pull the BHO lever while they are in there getting their weed freak on. :

I think your analysis is generally correct, however, the MJ issue is a perennial in states like CO, CA, and OR. The issues come up even in off year cycles. I think the people working the issue are not aware of the broader political calculus, even though they are probably serving broader Dem goals.


37 posted on 07/30/2012 12:23:59 PM PDT by Shout Bits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MileHi; humblegunner
Gunner forgot his </sarc> tag. Probably had too much wine. (J/K, G!!)

But you forgot your sense of humor, so you are even.

38 posted on 07/30/2012 12:27:19 PM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I do not disagree with you here. Wickard v. Filburn has emerged as a great threat to freedom in this nation, but excessive misuse of the commerce clause is not a valid issue regarding drug usage.

Nothing in the Constitution, or the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause makes that distinction. The standard is the Congress can regulate anything it "finds to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce". That is the basis of their claim of authority to conduct the drug war, and the reality is that the price of accepting that is accepting everything else they do under that claim of authority.

If we want federal government to wage a domestic drug war, then we need to enumerate the power for them to do that.

39 posted on 07/30/2012 12:28:51 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge; Shout Bits

Not in this case, Sarge. He has posted his entire essay here, and he’s not trolling for hits to his blog.

He has returned to the thread to discuss his essay with us rather than dumping and running.

Definitely not a blog pimp, but a regular contributor to Free Republic.

I do agree with him on this one in that these decisions should be left up to the states. Fedzilla is just too big and too controlling of the small details of our lives, and we need to give them the boot.


40 posted on 07/30/2012 12:33:18 PM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid

Phelps did his part in the relay last night. Lochte lost it for them.


41 posted on 07/30/2012 12:33:59 PM PDT by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady

No, my humor is intact. Didn’t think I needed a sarc tag to pull ‘gunners chain.

FReegards


42 posted on 07/30/2012 12:36:50 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
You can SAY you're only lighting your field on fire over on your side of the boundary, but should I object because of the possibility that your fire won't STAY on your side of the boundary?

It should be implicit that living in a republic means that people in other states may be allowed to do things you, and the people in your state disagree with. If you and the people in your state want to make it illegal it is then your responsibility to enforce that prohibition in your state. That's how it was designed.

43 posted on 07/30/2012 12:39:11 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing; shibumi
Be a man, humblegunner, shibumi, and whatever else you call yourself.

Myself calls me and myself and I all manner of names
and it's for the English to toss the frauds in the Thames.

44 posted on 07/30/2012 12:39:21 PM PDT by humblegunner (Pablo, being wily, pities the fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing; shibumi; Jim Robinson; Admin Moderator; Sidebar Moderator
You are the same poster under two different screen names, at least. Many know that you do this already, most do not.

This should be reported to the authorities forthwith.

45 posted on 07/30/2012 12:42:56 PM PDT by humblegunner (Pablo, being wily, pities the fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

Yuppers, a blog pimp.
And a skunk weed fan apparently.


46 posted on 07/30/2012 12:45:21 PM PDT by Darksheare (You will never defeat Bok Choy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

LOL!


47 posted on 07/30/2012 12:46:21 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AlmaKing

LOL.
Paranoid much?


48 posted on 07/30/2012 12:46:41 PM PDT by Darksheare (You will never defeat Bok Choy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Shout Bits
Marijuana has, of course, been proven to be medically benign.

Lost me on this lie.

49 posted on 07/30/2012 12:46:49 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner; AlmaKing; shibumi; I Am Not A Mod

Next up, he’ll hear that I Am Not A Mod actually IS a mod.


50 posted on 07/30/2012 12:49:20 PM PDT by Darksheare (You will never defeat Bok Choy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson