Posted on 06/15/2005 5:32:52 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Pelosi: Use of Medicinal Marijuana Should Be Left to States
6/15/2005 4:25:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Brendan Daly or Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616, both of the Office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Web: http://democraticleader.house.gov
WASHINGTON, June 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke today on the House floor in favor of an amendment offered by Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) that would permit the use of medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. Below are her remarks:
"Mr. Speaker, this amendment is especially timely, coming on the heels of the Supreme Court decision last week in Gonzales v. Raich. The Court's decision makes clear that federal regulatory and statutory changes are needed, and I strongly support Mr. Frank's proposed legislation that would change federal law to permit medical marijuana, pursuant to state law.
"My colleagues, make sure you know that what we are talking about here is in regard to states passing their own laws or initiatives. What would happen with this initiative, which is needed because we don't have a federal law to respect states rights specifically in terms of medicinal marijuana, is necessary because it would prohibit the Justice Department from spending any funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. It would leave to the discretion of the states how they would alleviate suffering of their citizens. This is a states' rights issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at releases.usnewswire.com ...
But that would kind of make a moot point of powers reserved for the States wouldn't it?
... and what do Federal subsidies have to do with a Federal Government that adheres to the Constitution? Government giveaways and other miscellaneous wealth transfer schemes have nothing to do "promoting the general welfare."
Could you expand a bit on that please? I'm listening.
Let me guess. There are no Federal Subsidies allowed in the Constitution.
That's Wickard.
I'm willing to give her that one. If states rights apply to marijuana, then states rights apply to abortion, labor unions, marriage, and everything else save the enumerated powers of the Congress and Administration. I'm in on that; what say you Leader Pelosi?
...and the states don't ask for subsidies?
Back to it: If the states continues to ask for pork (for their states) and the feds supply said monies, well, in sum -- There's no such thing as a free lunch: There are strings attached.
She's right. But then, even a broken clock....
Please see my post 49 for response. IMHO, the states need to either stop asking for fed subsidies and therefore the states will not only be sending (hehehe) lesser money to the state; but for the states, a lot of the strings attached in re Fed Law, would be a moot point -- the states would have more autonomy. There do need to be SOME connections, however, between Fed and State -- national defense, etc. But the situation now, between states rights and Fed rights -- are so mixed up and entertwined.
Maadi Giffins "not" in CA: So non-med pot smokers can be mellow and not prone to shooting their eyes out? 'Sides, they wouldn't have worry about anyone stealing their stash by "evil, hostile force". Possibly the great plan to make even would-be criminals... "mellow"?
Clearing singing voice: "HEYYY... everybody must get stoned.... "
ol' hoghead
...Back to it: If the states continues to ask for pork (for their states) and the feds supply said monies, well, in sum -- There's no such thing as a free lunch: ...
No free lunch. Ain't that the truth.
YES -- that is the truth.
Libertarian philosophy or ideology is but the Libertarian Party is full of crap AFAIC. Conservative philosophy seems to be compatible with the Constitution until it interferes with some personal agenda. Usually money making and quite often perceived insecurity. I can identify more with the Constitution Party but even they hold to some personal agendas that would trump the Constitution.
The more I learn and contemplate the Constitution and the intent of the founders the less need I see to modify it. Even slavery could have been ended and women allowed to vote without an amendment simply by honestly interpreting it and honestly facing the fact that 'all men' means all men and that 'men', as intended and written in the Constitution, means human beings.
No argument from me about the big "L" Libertarian party. I am at this point a registered Republican, although what passes for a Republican in this "solidly Republican" congressional district would probably have to run on the Socialist Workers Party ticket in a more conservative district.
"The more I learn and contemplate the Constitution and the intent of the founders the less need I see to modify it. Even slavery could have been ended and women allowed to vote without an amendment simply by honestly interpreting it and honestly facing the fact that 'all men' means all men and that 'men', as intended and written in the Constitution, means human beings.
There was certainly latitude for women's suffrage at least at the states option [witness the status of women in the Wyoming territory and then at the time of Wyoming's Statehood circa 1890].
I am not so certain about ending slavery in the slave states without a Constitutional Amendment. Slavery is so repulsive that when I consider it I am overwhelmed by the realization that otherwise civilized and in many cases enlightened men believed is was acceptable.
The problem with the argument that there was something unconstitutional about slavery is that too many of those debating / drafting / and ratifying the constitution were slaveholders and all the rest knew that slavery existed in America. Many of these men were beyond brilliant and were clearly literate and careful in the drafting of the Constitution. Ergo from original intent and the enumerated powers concept I am left with the belief that slavery was left to the states.
Was a constitutional amendment necessary to abolish slavery?
After the Civil War -- yes too much blood had been shed for the victorious North to have not followed through [even though slavery was not what the Civil War was really about.]
Had the Civil War never occurred -- IMO no constitutional amendment would have been necessary. Slavery would not, IMO, have endured for even ten more years in America due to rapidly evolving public attitudes and inferior economics.
I completely agree. I can't think of a thing to add to that. Good post.
planekT: There are pesky little details of which the "State" knows; but most citizens appear not to: For example: If you, a private school, privately owned on private lands, covering health care, lawsuit liability ins, etc. take ONE PENNY of Federal "largess" to "cover" your school -- you are then subject to the entire leviathan of FEDERAL RULES.
However, *if* that particular "private" household.. was using a fed/state health system, like Medicaid/Medicare. Or was receiving a food "subsidy"; or a welfarian "gift" of the Feds.. they can be subject to FEDERAL LAWS -- all of 'em. Just ask any subsidized farmer, for example.
Just ask homeschooling families. They know the tricks the pro-NEA types play. Even tho homeschooling is legal in CA, for example, pub ed district administrators tried playing games (or were simply ignorant of the laws): They tried telling parents that they, the parents, since they were homeschooling were going to be visited by a bevy of "bureacrats". That is, fire inspection, Health Inspection, ADA inspectors (I'm not joshing you).. etc. While it wasn't true; and it certainly wasn't enforceable, what people don't know is gamed by government bureacracies trying to grow their own "legion".
If you wish to smoke pot in CA, for medical reasons say, simply ENSURE you do not take a penny -- not a penny -- of Federal subsidy. Not in your health care. Not in your children's schools, not in your housing.
That's the way STATE RIGHTS WORKS BEST.
I would posit, however, that if you did statistical analysis of the "states" who hate President Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act", you'd find schools in that state heavily reliant upon FEDERAL dollars for operation.
And there, IMHO, is the rightful truth behind all the bashing of "No Child Left Behind". Before this act, schools took Fed Subsidies at will -- and there was NO ACCOUNTABILITY. Instead, those "dissenters" chose to attack why and how the "act" wasn't productive for their "particular" culture (location) of school. The point is; Federal law has other requirements besides "every child can read".. and this is what royally peeved misguided liberal TEACHERS, on the subject of "No Child Left Behind".
My solution? What I've continued to suggest, over the years, to those teachers, private citizens, etc., who hate the "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT" -- petition your schools to HALT any Federal Funding.
The sheer magnitude of whining, and whiplash I've received in response to my simple suggestion has made me grateful that I have a flexible spine; and the ability to "let go" when dealing with people who "refuse to see".
On another subject; there are socialist groups working very hard to undermine how States Rights and Federal Law work together to balance, not only the budget, but to hold the Union of the United States of America together. Story for another time.
Okay. Now, what about abortion?
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.