Skip to comments.Feds won't give assurance on medical pot
Posted on 07/01/2011 4:11:36 PM PDT by george76
click here to read article
Federalism??? We don’t need no steeeenkin federalism!
(I hate having idiots for friends but what can you do?)
Whether you agree or disagree with state positions on MJ, the feds have no business in the matter.
medical pot is a fiction.
especially when the quacks “prescribing” it work for the pot shop and have a 100% rate of “prescribing” it.
That would violate dozens of laws if hospitals and clinics ran that way.
This "war" is over. We have these shops on every other corner it seems. Last 4-20 they gathered in Civic Center Park to have a mass smoke-in -- under police supervision.
Legalize it, regulate it, and get the Mexican drug gangs out of the distribution chain.
Maybe the Mexican government is complaining about all of the business that Mexico is losing to the American “Mom and Pop” growers.
First, I don't smoke pot. With that out of the way...
Why is our government so adept with respect to arresting its own citizens, but at the same time it refuses to enforce the law regarding our sovereignty. Millions of illegals go to and fro on our border. Laws are passed so that the police can't even seize illegals.
This is the greatest problem right now?
Hey government, get off your @$$eS and protect our borders. The way you treat your own citizens is shameful compared to how you treat illegals. We are second class citizens when it comes to illegal immigrants. So shut up, because you don't care about us, all you do is pander to illegal minorities for votes. And kick us to the curb at the same time.
Another 0 promise goes up in smoke
Why, medical quackery is illegal.
When my friends told me that I looked them in the eye and said “That will be the first promise he has kept.” They had nothing further to say. lol
What a vicious little government thug...
I'm sure there are others who haven't missed the irony of us being caught between a rock and a hard spot. On the one hand legalizing dope is generally a libtard cause; on the other, states rights and 10th Amendment issues generally a conservative cause, particularly since Jug Ears was coronated. We're left defending a practice we generally find destructive to advance a greater principle of a limited feral government.
Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.
If you want on or off the ping list just say the word.
Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
Firearms Freedom Act
Health Care Nullification
|CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES|
The refutation of a dilema is performed according to the philosophical rules of logic by either grasping one of the horns, or escaping between them. Either demonstrate one or the other horn is invalid and the problem is solved; or propose another solution (thereby nullifying the dilema).
I can not condone libertarian idealism because I’m a pragmatist and realist. Libertarianism is nothing but pie-in-the-sky utopian idealism.
In an ideal world communism would be great also, but given human nature it ultimately is one of the most evil forms of governance.
If but for the socialst nanny-state predeliction of our Overlord leaders, there’s nothing wrong with letting people fail and conduct in sefl-destructive behavior. Same with immigration, let anybody in that wants to come in; there aren’t any government programs for them to parasite off of. Eventually they’ll go back to where they came from (or go somewhere else, e.g., Canada).
What business does the government have telling people not to be stupid? What business does government have in outlawing stupidity? You want to smoke crack? Idiot. I’m not going to stop you. But my Smith & Wesson will make sure you don’t leave my premesis with my belongings to feed your habit.
On the other hand, does society have a right to protect itself from practices that are known to be a danger to society itself? For exsample: is it a crime to operate a motor vehicle with 0.30 BAC? Or is it a crime to crash into and kill somebody? Or is it so DANGEROUS to drive with BAC 0.30 that it is considered wantonly and depraved recklessness? Same with illicit drug use, prostitution, etc. (all those libertarian ideals of ‘freedom’).
I'm sorry, but it's enough to make you ill. I know I'm sick of it.
No rock, no hard spot. Principle is principle. Either we believe in the 10th or we don’t. I even thought it was a good idea when Boooosh was POTUS.
No it wouldn't. Even in theory, the collective gets to tell you what to do under communism. It's inherently tyrannical.
It is our doper fellow citizens who put us between a rock and a hard place. Do we let them trash our nation even further? Or do we cry out for a tyrant who’ll preserve our country (or what’s left of it) from their dope-destruction?
We have demonstrated an incapacity for self-government, so we must instead be ruled over. The very aspect of the colonists which justified their independence is the thing we have lost.
So we’re losing our freedom, and deservedly so. We act like children. Our parents have given us a little freedom and trust, and we run wild like we’re in “Lord of the Flies”. Can we handle freedom? Obviously not.
We can blame the tyrants. But that’s like blaming the lion for chasing down a sick antelope. The tyrant is always there, waiting. And we’ve made our nation sick and weak, helpless to defend against him.
We deserve what we’re getting, because not enough of us will tell the dopers - and all the rest of those who will not rule themselves - to knock it off and act like grown men and women. I’m ashamed at what we’ve become, and plenty ticked off at those who have perverted liberty into license and so brought tyranny down on all our heads.
Speak for yourself. Obama's memo is making the rounds. He thinks he can walk all over the Constitution (actually he is), and it is not because of a few people smoking pot. I'll reject your view that we deserve a tyrant because of this subject. Your assertation is tyrannical by nature.
Quite frankly: no. I don’t believe that marijuana is as big of societal issue as that of crack, meth, heroin or presciption drug abuse.
But if you think that I’m advocating legitimizing crank, or smack, or any other number of pharmaceuticals - legit or otherwise - that’s another story.
You want to shoot glue into your veins, nobody’s going to stop you. From a pragmatic standpoint: none of that can be allowed. IF all social programs and safety nets are abolished and everybody is totally on their own, and we don’t mind the permanent ghetto class - which one will undoubtedly exist (once you’re in it no hope of escape either) - then go for it.
'I'll get you my little pretty. And your little plant, too!'
I see both sides of the argument but I tend to lean towards the federales staying within their enumerated powers. I don't see where the WOD falls within Art 1, Sec 8. Let the states deal with it. If it becomes too big of a national problem, then no doubt an amendment would pass restricting certain drugs. That's the proper way to approach the problem. Didn't work out so well once before with alcohol, but who knows???
From "A Clockwork Orange" in case you missed it. A VERY strange movie in its day. Today, not so much.
No doubt. After doing a quick search, she appears to be a fire breathing advocate for “social justice”. Not surprising given her background.
It would appear that ostensibly under the General Welfare clause in the Preamble, and putatively the Commerce Clause of Art. I Sec. 8, that Congress has authority in such matter.
That being said, it would appear that based on precedence, the XVIII Ammendment - Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors into the United States and its territories - that on the face of things the WOD and authority of the DEA would appear to be extra-Constitutional.
As it stands presently, Prohibition is still in affect - in accordance to the XXI Ammendment - and as such, I believe that regulation of narcotics and/or pharmaceuticals apart from that implied or inferred as being established by the Commerce Clause is an overzealous excercise of Congressional authority.
As a fundamental matter of law I strain to see any difference betwixt Congressional authority exerted in the WOD, DEA and that of Prohibition; either or all mandate with regards to the aims of such needs to be granted explicitely either to or conferred by the States (in accordance to precedent established with the Ammend. XVIII).
As far as I’m concerned there are a lot of more sinister substances than marijuana that society needs to concern itself with. And if use of cannibis is permitted exclusively with respect to medical purposes, I believe the risks to be far less than legitimate substances, e.g., Oxycontin, Fentenyl, etc.
There’s no doubt that ONE of the putative reasons for Congress’ mandate of any authority is to promote General Welfare, however, since alchohol has no fundamental medical purpose, why then was the XVIII Ammendment perceived as necessary?
Good posting, with some history and facts.
I personally don’t believe the issue of this thread is about whether marijuana should be legalized or not.
The issue, as I see it, is that the Federal government has CHOSEN to not pursue prosecution for violations of federal laws; with the intent of hopefully gaining voters for their socialist ideals.
Federal laws exist regarding aiding, abetting and giving sanctuary to illegal aliens, as well as marijuana and other drugs, and voter fraud and intimidation at polling places. Yet this Democrat administration’s Dept. of Justice refuses to pursue prosecutions for violations in their pursuit of votes.
Perhaps you are not as informed as you could be about I.8.3, and the difference between the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and the power to regulate commerce among the several states.
I request that you read the following pieces:
James Madison on the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces18.html">
James Madison on the power to regulate commerce among the several states: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html
Clarence Thomas's brilliant opinion in US v Lopez, in which he explains why the New Deal Commerce Clause is a fraud: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZC1.html
It's a "hate the sin, love ths sinner" kind of deal.
Defending the right to free speech means defending someone else's right to say something you don't agree with.
The right to the keep and bear arms also applies to people we might not necessarily like or trust.
In our constitutional republic,the Tenth Amendment means that the states have the right to pass laws we don't agree with.
The Founders talked about the States being "laboratories of democracy", and weren't under any illusion that every law they passed would be good law, but believed that when they did pass bad laws the people would sort it out and fix it once they had a taste of living under it.
Don't forget that we still have the process of amendment and can still use it to give that power to the federal government if the states and the people decide that's what they want.
Do not let anyone make you defend "drug legalization" for recognizing that the authority to pass those laws was never properly granted to the national government and thus, still rests with the States. It's a dishonest tactic and anybody that tries it needs to be called out and confronted head on.
Don't think for one minute this issue isn't being played and calculated to sow dissent among the ranks of conservatives, and used to help defuse arguments about state's rights in the face of constitutional challenges to Obama's health care plan and other abuses of power.
That is entirely within the pervue of the executive prerogative: enforcement of the law. They can choose to do so zealously or not. They can interpret the law narrowly or not.
Its like coming in late to work every day and the boss does nothing about it. One is clearly a violation of policy, but you park in ‘his’ unmarked spot and he fires you. Police officers are sworn to ‘uphold the law’ and yet they grant Michigan drivers their customary 10 MPH over the speed limit (maybe not without a glare though). Pot / speedlimit same thing in my eyes.
Crack, crank, smack you name it, that’s akin to three-sheets drunk and stumbling around in a crowd with a fully loaded combat magazine, round in the M-203 and finger on the trigger; somebody’s gonna get hurt.
True enough, and by twisting it into a pretzel, progressives took a huge leap beyond a simple reading and meaning to expand feral powers. Shouldn't come as a surprise I suppose since governments historically tend to do just that. From the context in which the phrase appears I can't perceive any emanating penumbra that gives them the authority to play Robin Hood.
...since alchohol has no fundamental medical purpose, why then was the XVIII Ammendment perceived as necessary?
Heh; what??? Anyhow, in the not too distant past, various tonics, elixirs and syrups were in fact offered for "medicinal purposes". No doubt ubiquitous during prohibition. I'm led to believe red wine and beer in moderation can have beneficial, even medicinal effects. And who's to say that "taking the edge off" during a stressful period doesn't provide some benefits; even if short term? Well, all of which is beside the point since we're really talking about the regulation of Mary Warner(late aunt's pronunciation) under the auspices of the commerce clause. Which has also been twisted into a pretzel by progressives.
Medical pot is an oxymoron.
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.
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.