Posted on 03/15/2015 4:01:52 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The recent signing of a medical marijuana bill by GOP Sens. Rand Paul and Dean Heller hasn’t gone unnoticed. Republican Majority Whip Steve Scalise has introduced a poll on his website, asking people to vote on whether marijuana should be legalized on the federal level.
Scalise in the past has voted down marijuana reform legislation, Marijuana.com reports. On May 30, 2014, Scalise voted against an amendment in the House to prevent the Department of Justice from using funds from its budget to crack down on states that have enacted medical marijuana programs. Later, in July, Scalise voted against legislation to prohibit states from penalizing banks that offer financial services to marijuana companies.
Marijuana advocates see the poll as a possible sign that Scalise may be considering switching his position. Poll results as of late have shown that the country is increasingly moving toward pro-marijuana attitudes. The General Social Survey in particular found that 52 percent of Americans support marijuana legalization. Only 42 percent remain opposed. (RELATED: Survey: Majority Of Americans Support Legal Marijuana)
“This is a great sign because we know that whenever voters are asked their position on marijuana laws, the result always comes out to be strongly pro-legalization,” Tom Angell, chairman of the Marijuana Majority, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “As more politicians begin to engage with their constituents on this topic, they will see how much public support there is for reform and it’ll be much more likely they’ll feel emboldened to take action to upgrade outdated marijuana prohibition policies.”
However, Scalise’s office made it clear that the poll isn’t any indication that the Majority Whip is changing his position.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Do you read the Commerce Clause as allowing fedgov to regulate intrastate marijuana policies?
2 to 3 years legal across country.
That's how most, if not all issues should be resolved. If the voters of a state want to have things a certain way, particularly something like this, it should be the business of the people within that state. Not a bunch of busy-bodies in DC.
Isn’t it possible to withdraw from that treaty?
How does the question of legality change any of that?
FORK the UN
In 1917, everybody in Congress understood that Congress did not have the power to regulate or ban alcohol, and that an amendment (XVIII) would be needed to make Federal alcohol legislation constitutional.
Why, in 1971, did Congress not even hesitate to pass Federal drug laws?
It's actually worse than that; by the interpretation
of the commerce clause we have now, congress can regulate things that are never sold. Justice Thomas's dissent of Raich starts off with the following paragraph:
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.And it's true: if not-commerce is considered to fall under the power of commerce, then the entire system is logically inconsistent and you can justify ANYTHING.
/johnny
This is what politicians, government administrators and employees will look like in the near future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4R9eDdq6CE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HDksztNM60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Ess3BhMWI
Totally and completely agreed.
General Social Survey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey
At the University of Chicago. Much on race relations there.
Scalise is desperate for votes after his DHS/immigration treachery.
Or maybe he’s counting on “short term memory losses” in 2016?
Or any other dangerous chemical. I'm sure that if we let the British ship opium into our country the way they did in China, there would be absolutely no Constitutional authority to stop them.
Not the same thing at all.
/johnny
Exactly. A constitutional amendment was required to give the federal government power to outlaw alcohol.
What difference does that make? I constantly hear that "there is no constitutional authority to ban drugs." So if there is no authority to do it, then it doesn't matter if it's international or interstate. There's no authority, remember?
Not the same thing at all.
Yes, a lack of authority to ban drugs within our borders is completely different from a lack of authority to ban drugs from outside our borders. Totally different. Absolutely.
But the commerce clause was never meant to give the federal government so much power.
If you don't see a difference between using the Constitution internationally, and nationally, that is your blind spot.
Personally, after looking at your home page, I expect you are no friend of freedom or the Constitution. You just seem to like to argue.
/johnny
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.