Posted on 03/22/2015 6:29:08 PM PDT by EveningStar
States across the land have legalized marijuana for medical – and, in some cases, recreational – use, but conflicts with strict federal anti-drug laws have left patients, other users, doctors, marijuana businesses and the banks and landlords with commercial relationships to those businesses vulnerable to federal raids and prosecution. A new bill introduced by Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., would solve this problem by simply respecting states’ rights.
Medical marijuana has been legalized in 23 states and the District of Columbia, but that has not stopped federal agencies from aggressively – and inconsistently – enforcing a stringent federal ban on the drug, placing many individuals and businesses in legal limbo. Under S. 683, the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion and Respect States Act, the federal government would be prevented from going after marijuana users, physicians and businesses in states that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Yes, this should be a state matter. The Tenth Amendment, after all.
Why should medical marijuana be special? Why not recreational marijuana? How about medical treatments and insurance in general?
How about just simplifying it to "Fed should respect state laws."
The federal government doesn’t even respect federal laws.
On what basis does anybody actually believe that they should or would respect state laws?
Should: the 10th Amendment.
Would: I don't, I fully expect them to assert their power by use of force if need be; those in power are disinclined to relinquish it.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is opposed to the measure, and he has said he's unlikely to schedule it for a hearing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medical-marijuana-bill-gains-momentum-in-senate/
_______________________________________________________________
I'd like to see how he reconciles that position with his co-sponsorship of the 'Restoring the 10th Amendment Act' =>
___________________________________________________________________
RESTORING THE 10TH AMENDMENT ACT -- (Senate - November 14, 2013)
--- Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, today I wish to express my support for the Restoring the 10th Amendment Act--S. 1643. This legislation, which I have introduced with nine of my colleagues, represents an effort to ensure that States' rights are protected against further Federal encroachment.
-snip-
Senators Cochran, Grassley, Isakson, Sessions, Roberts, Thune, Inhofe, Crapo, Risch, Enzi, and Cornyn have joined me as cosponsors."
I fully agree; there are those, however, who assert [usu. implicitly] that the commerce clause and 14th amendment essentially elevates the federal government into a position of unconstrained superiority over the states.
And the Feds should respect the states’ rights in banning same-sex marriage, placing severe restrictions on abortion, requiring voter ID, and refusing to implement ObamaCare. Those are not decisions for the central government to make.
You chip away when the opportunity presents itself. Your question should be addressed to the anti-constitutional asshats who trample the 10th Amendment in the first place.
How about just simplifying it to "Fed should respect state laws."
You mean the 10th Amendment?
Why is if that the feds should respect state laws on marijuana, but on abortion and marriage, to name two other issues, the liberal view is that their opinions must be imposed by federal courts on the entire nation? How do liberals decide in which areas states are permitted Tue freedom to make their own choices, and in which areas the policy will be imposed on them fromnthe top down???
Exactly!
Because they have contempt for the Constitution and only revere it when it helps a policy they support, such as pot.
It's the same contempt for the Constitution shown by Senator Grassley who talks a good game on the 10th Amendment, but spits on it when it supports something he doesn't like, such as pot.
What a joke. Do feds honor our laws on killing babies? nope.
This is the only common sense statement I see in this thread so far.
Would you ask your senator the following => 'Suppose the people of Iowa, through their elected representatives, legalize medical marijuana. Will you side with the people of Iowa, or will you side with the federal government?'
Agreed. As much as I despise pot culture, it is truly and fully a state matter.
Won’t the Feds begin respecting the rights of the States concerning medical marijuana now that they passed the CROMNIBUS bill & Obama signed it into law last December? I thought that both hemp & medical marijuana were part of the bill, but I could be mistaken.
Don’t forget about the often-ignored 9th Amendment, also. I believe that it works hand-in-hand w/ the 10th, & that the Founders intended for them to do just that when they wrote & debated the Constitution.
Would I be correct if my interpretation of the 9th Amendment was that just because a particular right isn’t specifically written into the Constitution doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist?
Looking at it that way would put a major brake on the expansion of federal power over the States...provided that the Feds actually cared about following the Constitution as written, of course.
if your state wants to stop killing babies will you side with the Feds? THERE IS NO CHOICE> Federal law prevails.
Naw, screw potheads.
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.