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much public support there is for reform and it’ll be much more likely they’ll feel emboldened to take action to upgrade outdated marijuana prohibition policies.”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 ...
As for the Federal Government, where is their authority to dictate what people consume, and where is their Constitutional Authority to project that? Even the FDA is on shaky ground there, imho, and the same 'logic' that that is justified could be used to justify controlling anything people consume, right down to dinner.
Now, the flip side.
Marijuana is a drug that is readily adulterated. Even retraining drug dogs to 'hit' on other drugs and not pot will not guarantee that other drugs won't get through, or that pot won't be routinely laced with other substances. What appears to be legal could be 'fortified' with anything from opium to PCP.
While I do not advocate the use of any of these substances outside a valid medical need, I can foresee problems in enforcement of other drug prohibitions as a practical matter, whether those prohibitions are at the State level or imposed (without Constitutional authority) from the Federal level.
While that might mean cross-country travel becomes more complicated for the user who is legal in their home state but enters other jurisdictions, I see the problem of marijuana being used to deliver other substances as a side effect of the new 'gray area' created by outright legalization.
Bottom line, though is that I think the decision should be left to the States (although the pot lobby is going to go all out to hit each and every state to legalize.)
The UN doesn't and can't enforce squat. Its member nations do - or don't.
What handwringing are you speaking of and why assault weapons?
We don’t have a UN prohibition on modern sporting rifles, but we do have one on cannabis.
Apparently you are unable to speculate, or imagine implications, or your makeup does not allow you to. I find such things to be interesting, what will happen next? What would happen if...?
That makes sense.
While nuclear weapons and bacterial agents came later, deadly chemicals, explosives, and toxins were contemporary to the Founders, and being rather learned men of their time I think it reasonable to assume they were familiar with them. But there is no enumerated power authorizing the federal government to assume control of them. They did however include a process for amendment in the Constitution.
You and Thomas seem to be in agreement on the Commerce Clause. Scalia was the one who endorsed Wickard in the Raich case, not Thomas.
I don't understand your comments. Where do you and Thomas differ on the Commerce Clause?
Everybody in this thread, please accept my apology if my remark about Justice Thomas offended you.
Note that the reason that I reference Thomas Jefferson’s writings about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers a lot more than I reference similar writings by James Madison is this. Jefferson tended to better quote the wording used in the Constitution imo, while Madison got a little bit too flowery at times. And that makes it a little more difficult to connect Madison’s paraphrasing of the Constitution to the Constitution imo, particularly when many low-information voters have been taught PC interpretions of the Constitution.
I clearly have same issue with judges and justices who don’t SHOW ME references to specific constitutional clauses and quote wording from case opinions.
Again, I tell such judges that’s fine if you say constitutional or unconstitutional. But please justify thumbs up / down with precise references to Constitution so I know that you’re not trying to pull a fast one. (I still cannot figure out how post-FDR era justices referenced clarification of Commerce Clause in Gibbons to justify PC interpretation of Commerce Clause in Lopez.)
So what? The UN has no business involving itself with either.
Anybody who actually reads the Constitution knows that the federal government has authority over import and export laws, but not over most ordinary domestic matters.
How are you on Joseph Story?
I regard Story’s writings about the Constitution and its amendments in his time as an excellent time capsule as to how the Constitution was interpreted in those days. I’ve quoted Story, but not as much as I quote Jefferson.
Thanks for the ping!
"According to that dissent, Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824) established that Congress may control all local activities that "significantly affect interstate commerce [emphasis added]," post, at 1. And, "with the exception of one wrong turn subsequently corrected," this has been the "traditiona[l]" method of interpreting the Commerce Clause.” — United States v. Lopez, 1995.
Again, what am I overlooking?
_________________________________________________________________
You seem to be overlooking the fact that Thomas was arguing against the dissent. He presented their arguments for an expansive view of Gibbons, then he went on to rebut it. Right?
If legal, I think a lot more people (teens) would be smoking and driving. stoned
That makes sense.
Exactly - too many forget that the Fed oversteps even when it “gives us stuff” and that the Constitution doesn’t give them the authority they are so wont to assume.
They also included a process for defending the nation against unanticipated and unnamed threats. It's called the "Defense" clause.
Drugs are not a matter of "import and export" laws, they are illegal and harmful to the populace. Therefore they fall under the umbrella of defending the nation.
Anybody who actually reads the Constitution knows that it doesn't explicitly spell out every form of attack which it authorizes the government to repel.
Where exactly in the Constitution is this "Defense" clause?
Perhaps you should read it and find out?
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.