Replies

I offered one, but you weren't interested in hearing it. I believe your words were "I don't care". I made my position, and reasons for it clear, and politely invited you to tell me what you disagreed with, and why.

Gettting beyond the fact that I disagree with you that my posting a link to a thread from an anti-wodder on the potential dangers of excessive mj usage links me to the RJWF. I have this comment and question.

You have said that you only consider issues concerning the commerce clause of the Constitution to be relevant here in our discussion of the wod. Which then brings the question: If the wod is unconstitutional under the commerce clause, has the issue ever been brought before the Supreme Court for its consideration?

One would think that if it is as unconstitutional as you claim, the wod would have long ago been declared null and void. It is at this point that, (LeRoy, No King But Jesus, The King is Dead) would then jump in and say that all the justices had been influenced years ago by seeing, "Reefer Madness".

"Reefer Madness" or not, the fact remains, the public by and large still wants nothing to do with legalizing illegal drugs. The issue when brought to the polls is defeated time and time again.

We are a free people with the power to vote our opinions and reason tells me that if the public truly wanted the unfettered freedom that you "strict" conservatives claim, the issues long ago would have been voted into law.

"Reefer Madness" or not, the fact remains, the public by and large still wants nothing to do with legalizing illegal drugs. The issue when brought to the polls is defeated time and time again.

So when the next Columbine happens, and the "public" decides that they don't want anything to do with legal guns, you'll be cool with that?

The WOD has not been challenged in the USSC on violation of Commerce Clause grounds. Since the initial acceptance of FDR's "New Deal Commerce Clause" by the USSC (under threat of the Court Packing Bill), it has only been in recent years that the court has found any limit on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause - the Safe Schools Act, and the Violence Against Women Act. Prior to that a liberal majority on the court has deferred to Congress the authority to decide what does, and doesn't constitute "interstate commerce".

"The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

-Justice Clarence Thomas

the public by and large still wants nothing to do with legalizing illegal drugs. The issue when brought to the polls is defeated time and time again.

You can resort to saying "the people don't want it" when the ONDCP propaganda office is closed down and the Nixon-commissioned report concluding that marijuana should be decriminalized is released to the public.

Otherwise this is as irrelevant to what is truly in the best interest of the country as when the Democrats make the perennial claim that Republicans are going to take away grandma's Social Security.