Posted on 07/01/2011 4:11:36 PM PDT by george76
The U.S. Justice Department says that marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with medical marijuana laws could face prosecution for violating federal drug and money-laundering laws... Deputy Attorney General James Cole said a 2009 memo by then-Deputy Attorney General David Ogden did not give states cover from prosecution.
Starting in February, 10 U.S. attorney's offices have asserted they have the authority to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with medical marijuana laws. Prosecutors, the states complained, are not even willing to declare that state employees who implement such laws are immune from prosecution.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Of course it is, and the free speech analogy is a good one. But, "I disapprove of what you smoke, but I will defend to the death your right to smoke it." just doesn't have the same ring does it??? In any case, I'm under no illusion and I never expect any honor or honesty from our would-be masters. It's more or less guilt by association; although not exactly. ;^)
I'm a little surprised it's taken the dopers this long to become "Tenthers". Labeling them strict constructionists has got to drive them battier than them labeling us dope advocates.
The XVIII Amendment was the result of decades of effort by temperance movements - a really huge deal in the 1830s' - and at the time was generally considered a progressive amendment; that coming a decade after Roosevelt writ-light and at the height of Wilsonian style-Rooseveltism, i.e., Franklin. Many state legislatures had already enacted statewide prohibition prior to the ratification of the XVIII Amendment.
SO why then was the XXI necessary?
From the Wiki:
The Drug Enforcement Administration was established on 1 July 1973, by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, signed by President Richard Nixon on 28 March 1973. It proposed the creation of a single federal agency to enforce the federal drug laws as well as consolidate and coordinate the government's drug control activities.Its plausible it was formulated out of 'clear and present danger' language. That notwithstanding, somebody needs to convince me there's a jigger's difference between prohiting a dram of Irish whiskey, e.g. decent single-malt (Bushmill's), and a gram of hash (Afghani Black).
For crying out loud, it would seem that all that's necessary is the Preamble; Congress can do what ever it wants in that regard. The USA could have the world's shortest consitution.
I don't think the states should regulate vegetable gardens either.
I disagree with any taxation on marijuana. The state governments should not be allowed to become the drug cartels either.
Prohibit any taxation on marijuana, take the money out of it and the problem goes away.
I may not be following your question raygun, but the 21st amendment was necessary to repeal the 18th, thereby once again making it Constitutional nationally to hit the sauce. It went further with enforcement language supporting the right of the states to carry on with prohibition if they wanted to. What am I missing?
For crying out loud, it would seem that all that's necessary is the Preamble; Congress can do what ever it wants in that regard. The USA could have the world's shortest consitution.
I share your frustration.
If you smoke it, you get stupid; the more smarts you have to donate to the cause, the stupider you get. Under what authority does Congress have to outlaw that which may make stupid? If its the General Welfare clause of the Preamble, then alchohol should be abolished w/out delay. Also Maryja Wowwa saps motivation; the more you have, the more of it that you're robbed. It gives one the munchies and it makes one laugh. Many chemo patients say that its Godsent (and I've heard tell by many females who relish its affects on a monthly basis). Its known as The Curse for a reason. But I gather it 'helps'.
It is called a gateway drug for a reason; you smoke some Mary Jane and the next day you'll be huffing gasoline fumes. Then you'll be moving right up that chain into the realm of Pamprin w/shots of JC.
You know the most curious thing? EVERYTHING is done under the ostensible purvue of General Welfare. How is aborting innocent little babies General? It sounds pretty damn specific welfare to me; particularly with respect to the mother who views a growing fetus as a lump of tissue that can be excised at will because its inconvieniant. That, and the fathers who just can't be bothered to be Dad's.
Why stop there, its General Welfare to abort in the 45th year of trimesters; you're becoming extremely inconvieniant. Its MY General Welfare at stake here.
I believe its in the interest of the General Welfare to allow whomever so desire to get their load on and be happy. But if you make me unhappy with your paranoid meth-head delusion antics, I'll terminate your habit with extreme predjudice (double-tap with an exclamation mark).
WHY don't these libtards go through the same motions as with anything else: tax the crap out of it? Then they can arrest individuals for income tax evasion (and they'll truly be criminals in every sense of the word).
Furthermore, they could ruthlessly enforce the Food and Drug Purity Act on the drugs. You either incorporate so that means for legal redress is available, or you go to jail for selling junk.
As many times as I've watched it, I need somebody to explain the ending.
The ending of that movie tears one's mind asunder.
It is akin to the ending of Twelve Monkeys.
BOTH of these movies beg the viewer to delve deeper into the insanity.
It seems that section II of XVIII is a clue; the States are being granted authority conferred under X.
Sweet.
Its good to be the King; wait for the shake.
As much as I'd like to help, I barely remember the movie having only seen the whole thing only once when it was released back in the 70's. The thing that struck me then was the imagery.
Seems to me like their intent may have been to also make it a Constitutional violation, IOW a FEDERAL offense in addition to a state offense. But that's just my impression of it, not having studied the issue. Remember, the states were and are a party to the amendment process.
I have a better idea... ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS...
Marijuana is an invasive non-native species.
I truly hope you never find yourself undergoing cancer treatment. It happened to me two years ago and the chemo and radiation nearly killed me. I never dreamed I would use weed, but after losing 40 pounds in 45 days and being unable to keep fluids (let alone solid food) down, I finally tried it at the insistence of a trusted friend.
Just moments after taking a puff, the nausea vanished and I was able to drink water. Within a few hours I could even eat. I had been prescribed every nausea med they had, including Marinol (synthetic THC), and nothing worked.
Please take my word for it that there is something in the smoke that is not in the synthetic, and people in these dire straits need to be given access to this drug. It saved my life because it allowed me to survive the treatment, and the treatment worked.
I understand the fact that weed (both medical and recreational) is abused. But it is a medical necessity for some people. If you have never needed it, I understand why you would have the opinion you have, and I once shared that opinion. But please at least be open to the idea that it has an important role among therapeutic drugs.
I thought we were wanting to shut down the EPA.
Congress claimed autority to enact the Controlled Substances Act under Article I, Section 8, using the "substantial effects" doctrine that was the basis of the New Deal.
The EPA created under the same claim of authority.
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.