State’s Rights Ping!
And for that reason alone, I will be voting for it. I was going to vote against it or leave it alone, but when Holder opened his commie mouth, that was it.
Lol. "A real trip!" That's a good one.
I don’t agree with the new law, but I don’t agree with the feds even more. It appears that I - as a science geek - appear to understand the constitution more than the complete idiot septic tank dwellers in DC.
It’s time for a revolution, folks.
I won’t ask, or tell - if you just say no.
I guess the Feds are looking for a piece of tax pie in the event 19 passes—right now revenue only goes to the state right? Can’t have that so it will be legal when they tell you it will be legal
Marijuana legalization is a very big pile of doodoo for the Democrats and they just don't know it yet!
That said I'm totally opposed to the legalization of drugs.
On another board someone posted...(excerpted)
I have yet to see/hear of anyone dying from smoking marijuana
It isn't what they do to themselves, it's what they do to innocents.
Toxicology results revealed Mr. Cope had marijuana in his system at the time of the crash. Officers said they smelled the odor of the drug in his vehicle.
The doper later admitted to smoking (and using other drugs but it had to be the "other drugs" right?).
DUIs? Same thing. Let's compound the problem by letting dopers get their fix and kill people like Lisa Clay Styles.
Unfortunately, the battle was already fought and lost. The US Supreme Court has already ruled the federal government can enforce its laws against marijuana regardless of state law. I think Clarence Thomas has it right (he argued that medical marijuana had nothing to do with interstate commerce).
Is this a ploy to get all mj users to vote D
whether they be Republican or whatever.
Boxer and Brown must be really pissed!
I doubt the nimber of people using marijuana will change much, whether legal or illegal.
It has been illegal for decades, yet many have used it.
The penalty has been greatly relaxed in several states, without reports of increased use.
I don’t have a problem with drug laws as long as they are products of the state. I don’t believe that the constitution grants the Feds authority to regulate narcotics (or much of anything else) as the commerce clause meant to simply normalize trade within the Union so states could no longer form trade cartels and have trade wars with each other.
For those who aren’t aware, the Cruikshank case (along with the slauterhouse cases) started the ball rolling toward weaking the original meaning of the commerce clause. The Grant administration had attempted to use martial law and other forms of Federal law to prosecute violators of the civil rights laws. These laws were struck down in Cruikshank. In the decision, it was suggested that the government should use the commerce clause to get what it wanted rather than the criminal code. Meanwhile, Cruikshank, who killed at least 27 negros in cold blood went free.
This is a state’s rights issue. If the people of California want to legalize marijuana, or cocaine for that matter, it should be their right to do so. States should be able to do stupid things as well as smart ones. This will be in the former category.
It’ll be interesting to see if California makes an interstate commerce issue of it when mj is legalized.
Curious: a state with such a crusade against tobacco smoking is set to allow the smoking of marijuana — something that’s 10-20 times more potent than tobacco? California is a funny place.
in California, possession of pot,
is no longer a crime
It won’t pass. Not yet, anyway...
Any bets the public smoking ban will be lifted next?,it’s why it came into play in the first place.
I do not support legalization of marijuana, but I would like to see the same energy and resources applied to secure our southern border.