Posted on 09/09/2013 1:05:35 PM PDT by Teófilo
They’re on their own. I don’t believe in welfare.
I don’t advocate legalizing all drugs. I do think that prohibiting the cultivation of mj for personal use is not worthy of a nation born of liberty.
If druggies want to grow mj and get high in isolation I would agree with your point.
My idea of a nation of liberty is to never have druggies impose their drugged out behavior on others.
Nope.
And then there are the billions spent on advertising and promoting alcohol every year. To kids as well as to adults. Where's the outrage?
A thread on Hello Kitty Beer was posted here yesterday. Some funny comments, of course, but it's a very serious assault on childhood to snare little ones into thinking drinking is just wonderful at a very impressionable age.
Alcohol/ethanol is an addictive drug.
The problem is not the "what", but the "how". The "status quo" you advocate is accomplished via an abuse of the Commerce Clause that is also the basis for the existence of agencies like the EPA and laws like the Assault Weapons Ban. Obamacare cannot exist without it.
It's an open-ended assumption of power with no objectivly discernible limitation. As long as questions about the Constitution return answers about the drugs it cannot be discussed, much less addressed and rectified.
The “status quo” you advocate is accomplished via an abuse of the Commerce Clause that is also the basis for the existence of agencies like the EPA and laws like the Assault Weapons Ban.
I don’t agree with this opinion.
The status quo keeps druggies a taboo.
I notice you don’t address my concerns about druggies inflicting their addiction on non-users. You’re only concerned about the druggies liberty.
Is there any evidence that the war on drugs has even slowed the use of drugs? When any 14 year old can score at any time of the day or night I am doubtful that there is anything positive coming out of the war on drugs.
It is certainly right to preach being drug free (I’ve never even puffed a joint) but drug laws seem to serve little purpose.
You can do that. I'll only ask you to tell me specifically what it is about it you find disagreeable, and why.
I base my opinion on research I've done on the original intent of the Commerce Clause, based on the writings of Madison, Jefferson, and Joseph Story among others, and the history of federal government expansion under the "New Deal" interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Please tell me what it is I've stated that you think is wrong. I belive I can provide historical references to support the arguments and conclusions.
I notice you don’t address my concerns about druggies inflicting their addiction on non-users. You’re only concerned about the druggies liberty.
I notice that you've chosen resort to personal attacks rather than address the arguments presented. If that's all you've got, then I think I'm done.
Much cheaper...if one is actually in need of analgesic, or other treatments those substances can be effective towards.
If "getting high" is the problem (it can be an undesired side-effect) then as more is known concerning the non "high" inducing cannibinoids, perhaps selective cultivation of genetic strains having less psychoactive (THC) element could be developed...then allowed to flourish everywhere, sort of like how stands of hemp used to be found in Kansas bar ditches, alongside rural roads. The useful portion could be used if need be, and the remainder could be harvested by whomever for conversion into cloth and cordage.
That Kansas hemp wasn't much use for those looking to get "high". Widely broadcast seed of that sort of low-grade plant anywhere in the US there is a problem with the high-grade $$$ indica growing (and all the problems that can bring), and watch the drug dollars flowing back over the border to criminal Mexican cartels slow to a trickle.
I notice that you’ve chosen resort to personal attacks rather than address the arguments presented. If that’s all you’ve got, then I think I’m done.
I’ve never attacked anyone here personally.
But if you don’t want to answer my concerns about druggies inflicting their addictions on others...well bye.
I just watched you do it. And now I'm going to watch you walk away from a discussion about the Constitution, because you can't make it about drugs.
What was the personal attack?
The claim that my only concern was for "the liberties of druggies".
Do you agree or disagree?
The claim that my only concern was for “the liberties of druggies”.
That wasn’t an attack but a conclusion based on your focus on mj users/growers.
I understand that view but as someone who has seen how druggies impact others negatively I can’t narrow a discussion illegal drugs to the user only.
The federal War on Drugs depends on the Wickard Commerce Clause, as does federal control over the environment, education and health care, to name a few.
I didn’t know that. Will have to do some research to see what that clause is.
____________________________________________________________
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.
-snip-
If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States.
This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”
J Thomas, dissenting in Raich
It was explicitly about and directed to toward me, personally - not any arguments I have made. It presents claims about what my concerns and motivations are that you cannot possibly have knowlege of as fact, and is not complimentary in any imaginable way. It has every defining characteristic of a personal attack.
I have made no reference to mj users or growers, so any claims of basing a conclusion on my "focus" on those things rings hollow.
You see a personal attack where none was intended.
I have concluded you want mj to be legalized...am I wrong?
I think I have heard Mark Levin speak of the abuse of the Commerce Clause...
The govt should regulate marijuana. I can’t be a liberatian on this issue.
Thanks for your info.
It is what it is. To quote Rush, "words mean things", and the meanings of the words objectively comes to a personal attack. I can make no claim to direct knowlege of your intent, but you seem to be wanting to dismiss my arguments by claiming I have dubious motives.
I have concluded you want mj to be legalized...am I wrong?
Yes, you are. And you didn't have any business claiming I did without asking that first.
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.