Posted on 10/20/2010 10:38:20 AM PDT by Nachum
No reason to try to discuss any further. Clearly there are voices out there only heard by one of us. All I can say is that must have been the other who posted. He'll come around when he sees his first case ever of a raving schitzophrenic who did nothing more that smoke joints. Then you can say, "told you so". Until then, ave atque vale ;-)
CA doesn’t have 10th amendment authority, any more than it would to legalize heroin. Pretty clear, but apparently not to the supporters of this. It won’t happen, and the practical reality is that medical marijuana is being exposed for what it is, psuedo health issues to market product.
It was your choice of words that I was making an “assurance” about people of belief. Rather assumptive of you, and to my reading, a tone disdainful of people of belief.
I wasn’t assuring you, nor preaching, but trying to delineate the segment of society that does not need limitation vs. those segments who do and always will. I responded, since you asked, about the Founders and my understanding of their concepts of morality and the law. Pretty straightforward, and I don’t have any response from you on that.
Believe what you want- I will not be telling anyone “I told you so”- I won’t have to.If you first acknowledge, and then dismiss the multi-generational, documented public health data on marijuana abuse or the scholarly work of dedicated professionals who have identified genetic markers that are exacerbated by this non-benign drug, then there really isn’t much dialogue to be had here.
Using the word “raving” to describe a schizophrenic is clear enough as to the limitation of your understanding of the disease state- so ruinous to the lives of creative, formerly productive people. The studies didn’t say these patients did nothing more than smoke joints, since they already had markers for schizophrenia, co-morbid symptoms and concomitant medication. The statistical result was significant and differentiated- pot exacerbated their condition in those with the markers.
This is a very disturbing topic to the chronic user community, and heretofore one which was just somebody’s opinion. Now the data is out, despite the facts, a hostile reaction from the same crowd as before is to be expected. People in the mental health field have been quite vocal about all this and finally are being heard. Glad you have read Catullus.A posteriori primum non nocere. Deo Vindice.
Then your answer must be that you would support fedgov using the Commerce Clause to shut down CA's legalization program if it passes. Why can't you just come out and say so?
I have a simple yes/no question. Do you think the Wickard decision was in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause... YES or NO?
Could be, and that would create a big opening for the cartels in an expanded market, since possession of “legal” vs. cartel pot couldn’t be distinguished, assuming the law doesn’t provide for “bonded” packaging of some sort or proof of a tax paid for the stuff by the user. Would that stabilize the price, cartel and non-cartel, and how long would that last. After prohibition was over, the bonded liquor took over the market from the illegal, and home brew.
I don’t support legalization for clinical reasons I’ve been wrangling with rhombus about in several exchanges. A thorny question for me as a conservative as my politics run into chemical knowledge.
My answer/opinion to you is based on what is true now in the CSA laws, and current enforcement. I don’t think pot will be de-listed from Schedule I, and because of that the federal government will prevail using the same means that keeps other Schedule I agents in their control.
The precedence is there from other agents in the class. The outcome would be the same (however they would legally enforce it) if there was a move to legalize, say, heroin (or any other Schedule I). Unless RJ Reynolds has a fix in to get all this done (LOL).
I think the Wickard decision, on the face of it was none of the govt.’s business and meddling with an efficient farmer, (if you mean Wickard vs. Filburn) FDR depression extending BS in 1942-about like soviet agriculture. But hell, FDR took away personal gold possession just for starters. To this day, you cannot legally distill your own ethanol vs. wine (course people do anyway) and all for the sake of taxes.
Dope is another story- even so, people will still grow their own. The human cost makes me weary. Sorry to have irritated you.
So you believe Wickard was not in keeping with the original understanding of the Commerce Clause. Yet, you would support fedgov acting under the Wickard Commerce Clause to shut down CA's legalization program.
That is known as contempt for the Constitution, specifically the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment.
Not getting any of that. Not at all certain Wickard would be the basis for continuance of what is settled federal drug law enforcement. Not being an attorney or having a dog in the hunt. Seems like all this was decided in 1937 in the Marijuana Tax act and subsequent revisions, and creation of the Controlled Substance Act and not the Commerce Clause.
The legal stance for federal enforcement of drug laws goes back further than 1942, and my point is valid that the net result will still be federal enforcement, even after significant legal briefs are argued and decided.
I would think that the legalization advocates ought to work on the re-scheduling of the drug first— you know, make it benign. But that might be well nigh impossible due to pharmaco-reality. This isn’t booze.
I’m a Southron, so I have a very high respect for the 10th Amendment, and States Rights since they were so greatly ignored and abused from 1832 onward as to tariffs, trade, and private property.
And yes, I've read Catullus and lots of other dead people too (5 years of Latin and 1 year of ancient Greek). "Ah but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." (I've also read Dylan and so far with no ill effects beyond a healthy disrespect of government.)
No problem, rhombus. I too had a classical education, so we may be the last of our kind. My delivery can sometimes be absolutist- I don’t think it is settled science, because some things never are in a lifetime. You’re right I’m concerned about the issue as it dovetails with another area of science that is uncomfortably close obamacare if it survives. I’m concerned about the human genome project and socialist, leftist marxists like H. Clinton taking a position on that could only be described as a reprise of the Nazi eugenics/genetics (Lebensborn) efforts. She’s on record saying that with gene data, people could be prevented from certain areas of work or society- and NOT helped in healing their problems. Living proof of the liberal left apeing the left wing national socialists. God forbid that, because someone has a marker for mental disorder, they are then ostracized for life by govt. types- then justify what they could do to people by the example of their drug abuse. Not to say they don’t do that now, but I worry that the best intentions would lead to a hell of Hillary types. In my work, I often came across survivors of concentration camps in our research, with tattoo numbers, and I realize the potential for out of control tyrants (hence my name tag)- we share a healthy disrespect of government- and there are a lot of us out there. “My Back Pages” love it.
The Wickard Commerce Clause IS the basis for federal drug laws overriding state drug laws like medical marijuana and Prop 19. Here are links to the Raich decision:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZO.html (Opinion of the court written by Justice Stevens)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html (Dissent by Justice Thomas)
______________________________________
John S Mosby: I'm a Southron, so I have a very high respect for the 10th Amendment, and States Rights since they were so greatly ignored and abused from 1832 onward as to tariffs, trade, and private property.
I am not convinced that you have respect for the Tenth Amendment. You didn't even bother to investigate the constitutional basis for the drug war.
Read the Raich opinions to educate yourself, then tell us whether you still support fedgov, via the Commerce Clause, trampling on the Tenth Amendment in this matter.
Us? What is that, the royal “us”? I don’t have to justify my opinion to anyone. I don’t give a crap about the “constitutional” basis for the GD “drug war”. My objections are clinical and based on medical reality. The “drug war” exists because of the mob, pure and simple and a subculture that has been very damaging as only they could.
Personally I have zero patience for smart ass lawyers and their stonehead pals in the drug underworld trying to “normalize” a clearly non-benign agent, anymore than I would have patience for heroin,crystal meth,crack and a host of other prescription and non prescription meds that are the bane of legions of people, being legalized. I have seen up close how damaging these are, to the extent that I am quite comfortable with settled law and keeping these illegal.
I differentiate a simple wheat farmer growing FOOD for himself on his own land from asshat criminal clowns in a national forest in Mendocino county growing weed on our nickel, or from mexican drug cartels who are fueling another whole wing of this controversy even as they fund the Aztlan La Raza, open borders movement. The FDR statists abused a farmer who grew food- a beneficial crop. There is no equivalence in some other “crop”, unless you think everything is “normal”. It’s not.
That said, people can grow their own, just like they distill their own. The only people worried about legalization are people looking to make some big bucks, and I lump them right in with other criminal enterprises. And it is the pimps in the govt. unions in CA that are pushing for yet another revenue source that would be dubious in any revenue it could produce.
For that matter CA can go straight to hell and stew in their own liberal crap as they refuse to address financial reality, and instead seek funds from an illegal source to maintain their liberal government monopoly. I’m sure all this controversy and the Soros money (the jewish nazi) pays a good living to the academic bar and lawyer pimps for the “movement”. The world moved way beyond these passe’ people some time ago. I mean really, are we trying to copy Afghanistan and their one crop poppy economy- what a waste of time and human capital. A nation of stone heads, great.
Now, if you want to talk about States Rights as regards a LEGAL business... that’s a different matter, but I’m through batting about legalisms from one screwed up state. We fought for our rights for very real legal property which was taken by progressive self righteous oligarchs without regard to any part of the Bill of Rights or the 10th Amendment or the Commerce Clause. By force of arms. There are many on FR that understand what I mean. Deo Vindice.
BWAHAHAHA! I'll give you credit for coming right out and expressing full-throated contempt for the Constitution.
JSM I am quite comfortable with settled law and keeping these illegal.
I have no doubt about that. Wickardistas generally support case law under the Wickard Commerce Clause. You and other Drug War Whores should read Justice Thomas and learn:
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 anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
J. Thomas, in Raich
Big government legalization pimps aren't about the Constitution- they are in the employ of large dollar criminal interests. As such, in our narcissistic society they have no idea about anything other than their own greatly exaggerated selves. In the case of legalization it is where AFSCME, SEIU, La Raza and others meet up with the lazy stoned entitlement class and their suppliers, in the name of “increased tax revenues”! What a joke.
Anyone who uses the royal “us” then pontificates and pronounces judgments by filling in where nothing has been said, has problems that can't be solved on FR. The Bandar-log talk constantly of their abilities, and their plans, in self-righteous anointed tones of the chattering classes. Stonies chatter a lot, and remarkably lack focus, imagine that! Wickardistas? People can still do what they want, and they always have. A lot of hate for someone who reveres the Constitution. Want to officially change things, then change the labeling. While we're getting all instructional, you might find that interesting instead of driving a truck through the law. Again, it is a Sched I. “Be-De,Be-De,Be-De....that's all folks!”
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.