Posted on 10/16/2010 6:50:39 PM PDT by Bokababe
“That’s why they have Field Sobriety Tests.”
And these will apply to marijuana smokers? What grounds do you have for believing that? Is that possibility in the proposition? I do not see it.
I don't think they want to do that. If they did that the proles would be refusing to convict each other for offenses on all the laws the WWICs (Whining Wussies In Charge) DO like.
Unless of course you accept Wickard and all the more recent obscene stretching of the elastic Commerce Clause. I do not, and I'm hoping those whose opinion matters begin to join me.
I love Thomas. Far and away my favorite justice. Votes correctly even when the immediate results would be to gore his own ox. Much better than Scalia, who tends authoritarian at times, and puts too much into stare decisis. I mean after all, didn’t THOSE decisions overturn decades and in some cases centuries of, if not established legal precedent, at least accepted practice? And NOW we’re supposed to suddenly discover respect for precedent???
I'm not even convinced that's a bad thing. Some states can be tailored more socialistic and the proles can go live there, and some can be more freedom oriented and the good guys can live there. Both people can live under laws of their own choosing and learn and make further decisions about the consequences of those choices.
Plus, I think it's really a bad idea for states to try to harmonize criminal law and tax rates and so on. (Well, good idea for them, bad idea for their masters, us.) If states have to worry about driving the productive members of society away, the ones who make the whole framework tenable, there is a limit on how authoritarian and how greedy they can get. If all the states harmonize their totalitarianism, that limit doesn't work nearly as well.
Excellent story, thanks!
Agree completely. And the courts have ruled in the RagingWire case that there are no exceptions even for prescribed medical marijuana.
But more that any one of those reasons, this is the ONLY possible issue that I can imagine California ever fighting for State's Rights on -- and you take your fights where you can get them.
CA Democrats and the Obama Admin would be tying themselves in knots over this one. Because CA would want to tax marijuana and the Feds would want to prosecute it -- can't tax it if you are prosecuting it and can't prosecute it if you are taxing it....etc. They will be nuts on this!
I was born & raised in CA and went to UCLA back in the 1970's. I smoked grass back then and I've been stoned a number of times. But I have never been THAT stoned, nor have I ever even seen anyone THAT stoned on marijuana alone, to run over someone on the road, back over her and then not remember it. That's a crap excuse from the driver, trying to get out of what he had done. I've been far higher, wilder and out of it on alcohol than I ever have been on marijuana.
That drivers story makes absolutely no sense -- it's like an "I took 2 aspirin and saw pink elephants in my living room" story.
Guess the thrill is gone after legalization.
Prop 19 is not a be all end all to the crime problem. Locally they are talking about growing fees up to $40,000 a acre plus other fees and lot’s of taxes so don’t expect the cartels to disappear from the scene as there will still be big grows and rip offs which often lead to shoot outs.
I don't think that there is anything that is "a be all end all to the crime problem", but it will hurt the cartel's profits and that's a start.
Calif might consume 15 to 20% of the weed grown here but that leaves 80 to 85% sold elsewhere.
Actually, I recently read something that said California consumes about a third of the cannabis coming in — surprised me that a single State consumed that much, but then I remembered — it’s California!
And I read it is less then 20%. Calif has a population of perhaps 35,000,000 of the 330,000 000 nation wide?
Who knows? Reporters these days aren’t exactly on top of getting their facts straight. In fact, “20% or less” sounds like a more reasonable number to me, too.
What I am sure of is that no business of any kind, including a drug business, wants to see their business drop by 15 or 20%. It may not sound like much in terms of solving a problem, but it’s a lot when you are the one on the losing end.
Just to set the record straight, I am voting yes in hopes someone else will get TAXED beside you and me and that may sound a little strange posted on a conservative forum.
Here is a little twist on the wetback situation. There was a white grower of about 1,000 plants shoot and kill one of his hired Guatemalan “helpers” and wounded one other and missed another just a few miles east of Eureka. I’ll see if I can find the stories...
Fine job there and I suppose a tad more civil than a torch.
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.