Posted on 04/20/2017 8:57:17 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
“So then you would be OK with outlawing the consumption of alcohol once it leads to the point of intoxication, right?”
Technically that’s already the case on the roads and in public. Did you not know that?
“So are you willing to respect the 10th Amendment and let the states decide?”
The premise of your question is flawed. Your assumption seems to be that ONLY a state could decide. Much of the marijuana consumed in this country is imported. States do not handle such matters in that regard, for instance. There are other issues as well.
That's odd - you did not make that distinction in previous posts. So, are you saying you are OK with marijuana use so long as someone does not drive or use it in public? Because that is the corner you are backing yourself into.
“That’s odd - you did not make that distinction in previous posts.”
It’s not odd at all. There was no reason to make such a distinction since I had already pointed out the need for responsibility and sobriety in conservative thinking. Apparently the oddity lies exclusively with you.
“So, are you saying you are OK with marijuana use so long as someone does not drive or use it in public?”
No. That is not what I am saying.
“Because that is the corner you are backing yourself into.”
No, there is no corner. You’re apparently making the mistake of thinking all things are equal here. They aren’t.
My anecdotal evidence is that habitual pot smokers are by far less obnoxious and unpleasant to be around than habitual drinkers.p>
I will say there was one outgoing guy I knew that it did not seem to bother at all. However, there was no one, and I mean no one out of maybe several hundred that I knew at the time that I could say it helped to make them a better person or citizen.
I am not talking about medical marijuana use, but recreational use.
Oh, I know all things are not equal here. Alcohol is undeniably a far more dangerous and widely-used substance than alcohol. But you only want Big Government to outlaw one of them. You could at least be consistent, comrade.
“Oh, I know all things are not equal here.”
I doubt that.
“Alcohol is undeniably a far more dangerous and widely-used substance than alcohol.”
Alcohol is worse than alcohol, huh? Are you stoned?
“But you only want Big Government to outlaw one of them.”
No, small government can do it too. It would be best if it were culturally outlawed.
“You could at least be consistent, comrade.”
I’m always consist. I also always make sense. You can’t say the same, stoner.
My question is perfectly valid. Either a state under the 10th Amendment, or fedgov under the Commerce Clause regulates intrastate mj.
Which of the above is in keeping with the original meaning, in your opinion?
I concur completely with everything you stated.
I have not seen too many, if any, habitual pot smokers that would consider to be “highly motivated individuals”.
I will also add that while I don’t think habitual pot use makes people more productive or better citizens my personal experience is that drinking to excess is far more destructive to the family unit and the individual.
I have seen alcoholism destroy too many families and destroy the health and mental well-being of friends, family and casual friends at a far higher rate and with more devastating consequences.
“My question is perfectly valid.”
No, it’s flawed.
“Either a state under the 10th Amendment, or fedgov under the Commerce Clause regulates intrastate mj.”
It’s an international trade. Again, you are missing the point.
“Which of the above is in keeping with the original meaning, in your opinion?”
Did the Federal Government have the right to ban slavery or should that have been a state issue? Would you be okay with a state making child rape, or child pornography, legal?
Everybody needs God.>>>>>>>>>>>
535 million Buddhists would say you are wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_by_country
But every one of them would say that freedom is the most important.
That includes freedom to go through life addle brained, if one does not know the difference.
You can have your self sedation. I would choose maximum awarenes, tourjours, toujours, toujours, God or not.
It’s an international trade. Again, you are missing the point.
No, you are dodging. Cigarettes are traded internationally. Does that mean fedgov can ban all cigarettes within a state's borders and grown within its laws? According to you, it must be 'yes'.
Did the Federal Government have the right to ban slavery or should that have been a state issue?
That was settled with the 13th and 14th.
Would you be okay with a state making child rape, or child pornography, legal?
Why, no. Would you be OK with fedgov making child rape and pornography, legal?
Somebody says jump, and you ask how high without even considering the legitimacy of the request (order to you).
“No, you are dodging.”
No. I’m pointing out that you approach this from a particular point too. Your point of view necessitates that anyone who disagrees must also disagree with the constitution. The problem is that you’re wrong.
“Cigarettes are traded internationally.”
Tobacco has always been a legal product in the U.S. Your analogy, therefore, doesn’t work.
“Does that mean fedgov can ban all cigarettes within a state’s borders and grown within its laws?”
Who banned slavery again?
“According to you, it must be ‘yes’.”
Not “must be” but “is” - if you were using the right analogy. Which you aren’t. This, undoubtedly, will continue.
“That was settled with the 13th and 14th.”
To the what? Oh, the U.S. Constitution. Federal Law. So you’re saying a constitutional amendment could then “settle” marijuana as forever legal or illegal, right? How about polygamy? How about gay marriage? How about child rape? If New York becomes infested with Muslims who perform genital mutilation could NY State enact laws to protect it from Federal civil rights prosecution?
“Why, no. Would you be OK with fedgov making child rape and pornography, legal?”
No. But you just said that slavery was “settled” by the constitution so apparently as long as it’s in there you’re hunky-dory with it, right?
Correct. That's how it was done with alcohol. Otherwise, it should be up to the states, per the 10th Amendment. If fedgov can impose intrastate marijuana prohibition, then it can also impose regulation of health care, welfare, environmental rules, etc. That is the Wickard Commerce Clause.
My 19yr old step son and his 13yr old sister have never touched the stuff but have no coping skills, initiative, motivation, cognitive skills or basic common sense.
We thought about giving them weed to see if it would improve their lives!
“Correct. That’s how it was done with alcohol. Otherwise, it should be up to the states, per the 10th Amendment.”
Except the Federal Government can make laws that bind the states without violating the 10th Amendment.
“If fedgov can impose intrastate marijuana prohibition, then it can also impose regulation of health care, welfare, environmental rules, etc. That is the Wickard Commerce Clause.”
And it can. And there lies the problem. You’re saying this is cut and dry. Obviously, it isn’t.
I have several friends that are conservative small business owners that do quite well for themselves and that smoke weed...
Look at that statement. Doesn't that make a bell ring in your mind?
And it can. And there lies the problem. You’re saying this is cut and dry. Obviously, it isn’t.
It is cut and dried and has been so since the Founding. States had powers, some of which were surrendered to fedgov, and some of which were not. Re state inspection laws, Marshall wrote in Ogden v Gibbs =>
They form a portion of that immense mass of legislation, which embraces everything within the territory of a State, not surrendered to the general government: all which can be most advantageously exercised by the States themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.
Wickard allowed fedgov to overrule that bright line. You cannot constitutionally support intrastate mj prohibition by fedgov without constitutionally supporting fedgov control of health care.
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.