Skip to comments.ACLU Backs Prop. 19, The Pot Initiative
Posted on 07/23/2010 9:48:58 AM PDT by Mojave
California's three ACLU affiliates announced today they are backing Prop 19, the statewide initiative to legalize pot for those 21 and older. The measure will be on the ballot in November.
"Enforcement of marijuana prohibition consumes a great deal of California's law enforcement and court system resources, and has a disproportionate impact on communities of color," the ACLU said in a press release.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.laweekly.com ...
You certainly summed up the situation perfectly.
Because like, it’s your body to (psssspppst) do with as you want to. Like abortion.
By the way, the ACLU is silent on the new 2014 to report our BMI mumbo jumbo to Big Prez.
And don’t get any ideas about selling a kidney. That’s prohibited too.
OK then . . let’s just legalize crack and heroin too
...”has a disproportionate impact on communities of color,” the ACLU said in a press release.”
Sounds like the ACLU spoke stupidly. Are we now going to legalize murder because its enforcement has a disproportionate impact on blacks and hispanics?
Is there any way to delete your post before the ACLU sees it?
Legalization in California is not such a bad thing. It’ll send all the junkies to California and out of our states.
Question: Are there federal drug laws? Is California trying to usurp the federal governments authority?
In addition, there is never a crime or moral evil that the ACLU does not support-and, at taxpayer expense when they are awarded attorney fees.
Or at least criminalize the use of the drugs nicotine caffeine and alcohol.
The same is true of Arizona enforcing illegal immigration law.
The other states’ legislators that are saying they provide much needed labor and revenue can exploit them for votes, revenue, and labor. What’s the problem?
And I am sure none of this is going to make it over state lines.
Are we now going to legalize murder because its enforcement has a disproportionate impact on blacks and hispanics?
Is there any way to delete your post before the ACLU sees it?
No, but it got me to thinking that whites can claim disproportionate impact relative to asians and start demanding special treatment from Government.
So the ACLU admits that the reason more blacks and hispanics are incarcerated is that there is more crime among blacks and hispanics? Brilliant!
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anythingand the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
The majoritys rewriting of the Commerce Clause seems to be rooted in the belief that, unless the Commerce Clause covers the entire web of human activity, Congress will be left powerless to regulate the national economy effectively. Ante, at 1516; Lopez, 514 U.S., at 573574 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The interconnectedness of economic activity is not a modern phenomenon unfamiliar to the Framers. Id., at 590593 (Thomas, J., concurring); Letter from J. Madison to S. Roane (Sept. 2, 1819), in 3 The Founders Constitution 259260 (P. Kurland & R. Lerner eds. 1987). Moreover, the Framers understood what the majority does not appear to fully appreciate: There is a danger to concentrating too much, as well as too little, power in the Federal Government. This Court has carefully avoided stripping Congress of its ability to regulate interstate commerce, but it has casually allowed the Federal Government to strip States of their ability to regulate intrastate commercenot to mention a host of local activities, like mere drug possession, that are not commercial.
One searches the Courts opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States. Yet this Court knows that [t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 155 (1992) (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991)). That is why todays decision will add no measure of stability to our Commerce Clause jurisprudence: This Court is willing neither to enforce limits on federal power, nor to declare the Tenth Amendment a dead letter. If stability is possible, it is only by discarding the stand-alone substantial effects test and revisiting our definition of Commerce among the several States. Congress may regulate interstate commercenot things that affect it, even when summed together, unless truly necessary and proper to regulating interstate commerce.
And what will the TSA personnel at California airports do with all the ounces that they "confiscate" at check in?
Proposition 19 provides for sales.
They will give it to the poor of course or sell it in TSA shops and donate the proceeds to illegals (they will need the money once this income from illegal drugs dries up).
So the California Law tracks citizen’s purchases and limits them? Requires them to show valid driver’s license or state issued id with proof of residence?
Does the law also require proof that the drugs were grown in California?
Well, what a shock I tell you.
If it’s degenerate, the ACLU is for it. Anything that destroys human beings.
Also wonder if they will ban illegal grow operations where the drugs are grown for smuggling to other states?
“Or at least criminalize the use of the drugs nicotine caffeine and alcohol. “
Oh yes, they are such moral equivalents.
If we are going to ban public nudity, we must therefore ban shorts.
If we were evil racists like the Democrats claim, we would support this because these lazy pot smokers in the inner city never vote.
Too busy getting high.
Disturbing to see so called conservatives cheering utilizing the court's unconstitutional substantial effects doctrine and apply it to any type of prohibition law.
LOL, the scumbag ACLU...
Let me know when those mice take on a 2nd Amendment issue.
What make marijuana “Immoral”?
What exempts alcohol from the morality clause of the constitution?
In California, you have to show your ID when purchasing cold medicine or cough syrup. My husband also had to show his ID when he purchased some marshmallow forks at the local pharmacy!! California is filled with bureaucratic bullies!
Fungible. Oh, and a false distinction to boot.
"For these reasons, we hold that medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana." --Justice Clarence Thomas
But the question should be “Why are there federal drug laws”?
Show me where the constitution gives them that power?
Yes it will send all the drug tourists to California. They’ll get in cars, drive to California, spend a lot of money and drive home to their houses, families and jobs.
“And I am sure none of this is going to make it over state lines.”
So then pot is not currently available in your state anyway?
All hail the moral Fed Gov.
Our benevolent nanny.
You would trade freedom for pottage.
There are moralists and there are conservatives.
There are definite distinctions between the two...something that is illustrated here quite often.
What makes marijuana “immoral?”
The same thing that makes drunkenness immoral.
I had this debate on another thread. Alcohol use is always made equivalent to drunkenness. But you can have one without the other, any usually, people who drink do not get drunk.
A person can have a glass or two or even three, depending on their body type and the length of time ingesting and the alcohol level in the drink; without being impaired.
A person can not smoke a joint without being impaired.
Deliberately impairing your rationality and judgement is immoral.
I will not defend drunkenness any more than I will defend getting stoned.
But a limited amount of alcohol does not make you drunk.
Lest you think I am defending my favorite drug at the expense of yours, I assure you, I do not drink at all. I don’t like the taste of any alcohol being the reason.
Some like to equate marijuana with caffeine; I say again, a person can drink quite a few cups of coffee without getting high; but you are high if you smoke one joint.
“Oh yes, they are such moral equivalents”
Actually, I would say alcohol is roughly equivalent.
Yes, produced locally or smuggled from Mexico or Canada. Currently smuggling from California isn’t the source.
California is perfectly free to put this initiative on the ballot and to promote the agendas of the left.
“Actually, I would say alcohol is roughly equivalent.”
No, and that is indeed the crux of the argument.
If marijuana’s effects were equivalent to alcohol’s effects, it would make little sense to ban marijuana.
However, as I posted above, most of the people having a drink today are not going to get impaired with it.
Most of the people smoking pot today - virtually all, unless they suddenly have to snuff out the dutchie for some strange reason after one little hit - will be impaired.
Thus they are not the same.
So this proposed law requires the same?
Hey, if it does limit purchases to people that have a state id and limits their purchase and only allows local pot I am all for it as long as the taxes are all put for enforcement of legal grow operations only.
State rights, have at it.
I just don’t want to see California as the new source of Pot for all the other states in the US. You will see all the Mexican Drug gangs move from Mexico right into California.
“but you are high if you smoke one joint”
And you are drunk if you drink a gallon of whisky too.
So it’s all about the quantity then?
Should half joints be legal?
“There are definite distinctions between the two...something that is illustrated here quite often.”
Yup! Seems more and more lately too.
If it’s not drugs, it’s religion. The sad fact is that a lot of these so called “conservatives” are just fine with a lot of government - as long as it agrees with their views.
Yes, you are drunk if you drink a gallon of whiskey.
Drunkenness is a crime, already.
You might argue that one puff of the currently very high THC joints should be legal. I might agree with you in concept. But it would be so ridiculous to enforce - that is unenforceable.
If you were able to smoke 2, 3 joints without being impaired, I’d see the equivalence to 2, 3 drinks.
But you can’t.
Impaired after one hit?
Well I admit it’s been several decades since I last indulged, and I hear it’s more potent these days.
But 1 hit? Really?
I bet you favor a .02% BAC limit too. Or would that invalidate your argument.
I have news for you. If you are average sized and you have 2 or 3 beers, you are “impaired” according to the law.
It doesn’t contain any identification or residence requirements for purchase.
“But it would be so ridiculous to enforce”
I don’t know about that. They have breathalyzers, not to mention field sobriety test (walk a straight line, etc.)
If you can pass a field sobriety test, shouldn’t you be OK to drive?
I did not say you are impaired after one hit. Please read my post.
“You might argue that one puff of the currently very high THC joints should be legal. I might agree with you in concept. But it would be so ridiculous to enforce - that is unenforceable.”
As for being impaired after 2 or 3 beers, I indicated that it depends on alcohol content, body type, and how quickly you drink it. Again, please read my post.
I can most certainly drink 2 or 3 beers over an hour or two and not be impaired.
I can’t say the same about smoking 2 or 3 joints over an hour or two. Not even just one joint.
I know your world view is demanding that marijuana and alcohol be considered equivalent. But they aren’t.