Evil Twin Skippy: Not so fast there Subby. Federal Law only trumps state law with respect to interstate commerce.

By all rights an measures, products produced and consumed within the same state can't be regulated by the federal government.

I think Article VI of the Constitution says otherwise: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Evil Twin Skippy: Not so fast there Subby. Federal Law only trumps state law with respect to interstate commerce.

By all rights an measures, products produced and consumed within the same state can't be regulated by the federal government.

Try telling that to the DEA.

What were we just talking about?

Evil Twin Skippy: Not so fast there Subby. Federal Law only trumps state law with respect to interstate commerce.

By all rights an measures, products produced and consumed within the same state can't be regulated by the federal government.

[laughing sailor picture.jpg]

Strictly speaking, you're right. Thank FDR for the abomination we've got now.

It won't change, however. Everyone's got a pet law or project that they can only force on everyone else at the federal level through perversion of interstate commerce.

dennysgod: Evil Twin Skippy: Not so fast there Subby. Federal Law only trumps state law with respect to interstate commerce.

By all rights an measures, products produced and consumed within the same state can't be regulated by the federal government.

I think Article VI of the Constitution says otherwise: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Let me introduce you to the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

/the only way the Constitution was ratified by the individual states was under the promise that they admend the thing as soon as humanly possible to limit the scope of the central government

Evil Twin Skippy: Not so fast there Subby. Federal Law only trumps state law with respect to interstate commerce.

By all rights an measures, products produced and consumed within the same state can't be regulated by the federal government.

They can. The Supreme Court ruled that anything that has an effect on interstate commerce, even if it involves products that are manufactured and sold within the same state, can be regulated.

Whatever. I'm still gonna fire up this state legal joint right now for my Sunday W&B.

slykens1: Evil Twin Skippy: Not so fast there Subby. Federal Law only trumps state law with respect to interstate commerce.

By all rights an measures, products produced and consumed within the same state can't be regulated by the federal government.

[laughing sailor picture.jpg]

Strictly speaking, you're right. Thank FDR for the abomination we've got now.

It won't change, however. Everyone's got a pet law or project that they can only force on everyone else at the federal level through perversion of interstate commerce.

Actually you can blame Lincoln. That pesky war decided that states had to STFU and be the Federalist's biatch.

Weaver95: there is absolutely no reason for cannabis to be Schedule I.

Agreed. In fact I consider the drug war to be useless in general. Reminds me too much of Prohibition.

FTFA: "Marijuana traffickers are reported to be taking advantage of the legal gray areas by growing pot in backyards and open farmland, often avoiding arrest by claiming the pot is for medical use.

And marijuana opponents are seeing confirmation of their fear that medical use would crack open the door to general acceptance of pot.

A Gallup national poll released last week showed 50 percent for and 46 percent against full legalization. This appears to be the first time more Americans have supported it than opposed it - as some headline writers put it, an "all-time high." "

Give it up, Feds...it's time to throw in the towel on Prohibition II. Pot growing is the only thing keeping California's economy afloat. Otherwise, we'd have divided by zero and disappeared down the worm-hole by now. Of course, legalization will lead to dramatic price drops all by itself, but in the end the Gubbermint needs the tax revenues, so I see legalization as inevitable.

BTW, GanjSmokr...love the handle. ;^)

inglixthemad: Actually you can blame Lincoln. That pesky war decided that states had to STFU and be the Federalist's biatch.

Yes, but the perversion of interstate commerce came much later.

I don't have a problem with federal supremacy - it make sense in how the country is organized, however, the use of interstate commerce to tell me that I can't grow a plant in my garden for my own use is so patently stupid it could only have been conceived by the government.

/not a smoker, don't have a problem with it tho.

Why should the federal government be allowed to dictate what the States can do? The states are a closer representation of the needs and valus of the local populace. The federal govenment should not have any say in what state laws are. If the people of a certain state want and then get enacted, a state law allowing for the growing and consumption of pot the so be it. The feds have no business trying to enforce the values of the Washington DC on the rest of the country.

This is not an issue like murder or theft where there is a clear line of wrong doing. This is an imposed moral judgement by a federal organization that does not represent the will and the values of the specific states that seek legalization. States rights should superscede the will of the federal government. Not just for drug issues but for everything.

Stone Meadow: FTFA: "Marijuana traffickers are reported to be taking advantage of the legal gray areas by growing pot in backyards and open farmland, often avoiding arrest by claiming the pot is for medical use.

And marijuana opponents are seeing confirmation of their fear that medical use would crack open the door to general acceptance of pot.

A Gallup national poll released last week showed 50 percent for and 46 percent against full legalization. This appears to be the first time more Americans have supported it than opposed it - as some headline writers put it, an "all-time high." "

Give it up, Feds...it's time to throw in the towel on Prohibition II. Pot growing is the only thing keeping California's economy afloat. Otherwise, we'd have divided by zero and disappeared down the worm-hole by now. Of course, legalization will lead to dramatic price drops all by itself, but in the end the Gubbermint needs the tax revenues, so I see legalization as inevitable.

BTW, GanjSmokr...love the handle. ;^)


Maybe marijuana will get booted off Schedule I when the media stops using those cutsey puns. It's proof that despite the DEA effectively banning the study of medical marijuana in the U.S, the near-civil war in Mexico, the number of people both helped and harmed by marijuana and the hundreds of thousands of people arrested for it, to many people marijuana legalization is a silly joke only stupid hippies would actually consider. We cannot let Cheech & Chong or Harold & Kumar become the faces of marijuana legalization.

Blaque Jaques Shellaque: States rights should superscede the will of the federal government. Not just for drug issues but for everything.

Don't be silly. Your scenario would have some states re-instituting slavery, outlawing religions they don't like, taxing interstate commerce that passes through them, etc. Having the Feds supreme in those areas a plain language reading of the Constitution provides for is well and good. The rub lies in Congress' natural tendency to interpret everything as falling under the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is patently absurd IMO.

fta ...want to see the medical marijuana movement protected from the taint of lawbreakers.

Uh huh huh huh

I doubt you would find the populace of any state willing to reinstitue slavery or outlaw religions. We have come a long way in those regards. Also, the constitution would still be applicable to the individual states and would guarantee those rights as set out in the document. Unless a state were to withdraw from the USA and go it alone.

Blaque Jaques Shellaque: We have come a long way in those regards.

Read a history book.

aLenny_da_Hog: Blaque Jaques Shellaque: We have come a long way in those regards.

Read a history book.

I was talking about the present. Not about history. Yes there were horrible things in the past. We are more educated now and unlikely to enact slavery. If you have a specific book in mind that spells out how the present is the same as history please share the tile of this book with me.

The problem here is not that the federal government is evil and the states should decide everything. The problem is that this specific federal law is idiotic. State laws are notoriously prone to prejudice and abuse, solely due to the smaller scale of their idiocy, and the feds have had to intervene countless times to rein them in. If you think we've grown past such things, just look at what's been happening in states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida lately.

Blaque Jaques Shellaque: I was talking about the present. Not about history.

I know. And you're being ignorant of human nature because of it.

History tells us that these things do not end. They come back again and again. You're talking about institutions with recent histories, with active practitioners.

We are never over them.

Weaver95: there is absolutely no reason for cannabis to be Schedule I.

There sure is: outlawing not just a plant but the most prolific one on the planet lets Uncle Sam stuff his prisons with minorities to replace outlawed slave labor with prison labor.

Also prevents them from procreating, because there's nothing the white man fears more than the colored.

/tinyurl.com/1mn -->
//"It wasn't hostility to the drug, it was hostility to the newly arrived Mexican community that used it."

If you believe Government is too big, too intrusive and spends too much money, then you should logically support the legalization of weed.

Tusz: The problem here is not that the federal government is evil and the states should decide everything. The problem is that this specific federal law is idiotic. State laws are notoriously prone to prejudice and abuse, solely due to the smaller scale of their idiocy, and the feds have had to intervene countless times to rein them in. If you think we've grown past such things, just look at what's been happening in states like Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida lately.

I agree with that. The Feds should only intervene on states when they violate the constitution. Other than that leave the states alone to make their own laws that reflect the will of the local populace. If that will violates the constitution, the feds should step in.

To have the federal government attempt to regulate, commerce, agriculture, schooling, drug enforcement, travel, the environment etc...etc....etc... is rediculous. Why even have states if the feds are just going to regulate everything?

For more info please see http://www.regulations.gov

Try and find things they don't regulate

urban.derelict: Weaver95: there is absolutely no reason for cannabis to be Schedule I.

There sure is: outlawing not just a plant but the most prolific one on the planet lets Uncle Sam stuff his prisons with minorities to replace outlawed slave labor with prison labor.

Also prevents them from procreating, because there's nothing the white man fears more than the colored.

/tinyurl.com/1mn -->
//"It wasn't hostility to the drug, it was hostility to the newly arrived Mexican community that used it."

That, plus the wood-paper lobby was very strong at the time and didn't want to lose business to hemp-paper.

Evil Twin Skippy: Not so fast there Subby. Federal Law only trumps state law with respect to interstate commerce.

By all rights an measures, products produced and consumed within the same state can't be regulated by the federal government.

No, it doesn't work that way.

Blaque Jaques Shellaque: To have the federal government attempt to regulate, commerce, agriculture, schooling, drug enforcement, travel, the environment etc...etc....etc... is rediculous. Why even have states if the feds are just going to regulate everything?

States regulate as well. They're governments. It's what they do.

Go down to your city zoning office sometime.

inkblot: Stone Meadow: FTFA: "A Gallup national poll released last week showed 50 percent for and 46 percent against full legalization. This appears to be the first time more Americans have supported it than opposed it - as some headline writers put it, an "all-time high.""

Maybe marijuana will get booted off Schedule I when the media stops using those cutsey puns. It's proof that despite the DEA effectively banning the study of medical marijuana in the U.S, the near-civil war in Mexico, the number of people both helped and harmed by marijuana and the hundreds of thousands of people arrested for it, to many people marijuana legalization is a silly joke only stupid hippies would actually consider. We cannot let Cheech & Chong or Harold & Kumar become the faces of marijuana legalization.

I don't know that in-artful puns drive drug policy in this country, but so long as a majority of Americans supported keeping it illegal it was easy for the Feds to continue to do so. The times they are a'changing, though, and within a few years a clear majority for legalization will emerge. President Romney will legalize it. ;^)

Blaque Jaques Shellaque: Unless a state were to withdraw from the USA and go it alone.

The Civil War settled that. No state can withdraw from the Union (no, not even Texas).

Go read a history book.

Lenny_da_Hog: Blaque Jaques Shellaque: To have the federal government attempt to regulate, commerce, agriculture, schooling, drug enforcement, travel, the environment etc...etc....etc... is rediculous. Why even have states if the feds are just going to regulate everything?

States regulate as well. They're governments. It's what they do.

Go down to your city zoning office sometime.

City zoning is at the county level. Another level of regulation. Of course states regulate. So why do we need regulation on top of regulation on top of regulation? Why does the federal Government feel it can infringe on state rights? I don't even smoke weed but I see it as no different than booze. So why make it evil at the federal level? What is the payoff for the feds? The federal government should be like Internal Affairs for the cops. Let the states do their thing without interference unless they see constitutional violation. Then they step in.

Blaque Jaques Shellaque: City zoning is at the county level.

trolling is not amusing. It's farking stupid.

legalize it. i still wont smoke

Dwight_Yeast: Blaque Jaques Shellaque: Unless a state were to withdraw from the USA and go it alone.

The Civil War settled that. No state can withdraw from the Union (no, not even Texas).

Go read a history book.

I wasn't implying that they would do it with permission.

Britney Spear's Speculum: legalize it. i still wont smoke

Brownies?

bravian: dennysgod: Evil Twin Skippy: Not so fast there Subby. Federal Law only trumps state law with respect to interstate commerce.

By all rights an measures, products produced and consumed within the same state can't be regulated by the federal government.

I think Article VI of the Constitution says otherwise: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

Let me introduce you to the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

/the only way the Constitution was ratified by the individual states was under the promise that they admend the thing as soon as humanly possible to limit the scope of the central government


But neocons, libertarians and teabaggers say the Constitution is set in stone and can't be changed so the 10th shouldn't count if you go by their logic (which is really a false dichotomy since the document they say is set in stone isn't even the original version).

But is nice to see that politicians haven't changed one bit. "Here, pass this bill so we can change it later", instead of doing it right the first time.

King Something: That, plus the wood-paper lobby was very strong at the time and didn't want to lose business to hemp-paper.

You keep telling yourself that, as if it were legalized they would not adjust to profit from the new, more sustainable income.

Blaque Jaques Shellaque: I doubt you would find the populace of any state willing to reinstitue slavery or outlaw religions. We have come a long way in those regards. Also, the constitution would still be applicable to the individual states and would guarantee those rights as set out in the document. Unless a state were to withdraw from the USA and go it alone.

Okay, I confess to using a little hyperbole, but my point remains that there are legitimate roles for the USG to play. IMO leaving "everything" to the states is silly.

I even concede that the Feds have a legitimate role to play wrt certain hard drugs with a proven history of physical addiction, demonstrated health hazards and lack of appreciable medical benefit. I just think that the negative externalities of continued marijuana prohibition outweigh any benefits we get from continuing to criminalize its possession and use.

Britney Spear's Speculum: legalize it. i still wont smoke

Your loss. Better than alcohol. Never woke up wanting to kill myself to end the headache and the vomiting. Makes sex, food, and music twice as good.

DarnoKonrad: Evil Twin Skippy: Not so fast there Subby. Federal Law only trumps state law with respect to interstate commerce.

By all rights an measures, products produced and consumed within the same state can't be regulated by the federal government.

No, it doesn't work that way.

It was the argument attempted in Wickard v Fillburn and again in Raich. Too bad the Feds are more interested in keeping the debbil weed from our childrenz than they are with logical consistency in laws.

For example, weed I grow in MD has "the potential" to affect interstate commerce (according to SCOTUS), but emissions (another business activity) from one state affecting another do not?

The party of the first part can apply suction to the party of my second part.

Dr Dreidel: the Feds are more interested in keeping the debbil weed from our childrenz

Until very recently, wide majorities supported its illegality. I disagree with that, but that's the way democracy works. People blaming it on "The Feds" are really passing the buck. Like so many screwed up things, the blame lies squarely with voters. Not the faceless monolith called "government."

Dr Dreidel: but emissions (another business activity) from one state affecting another do not?

And as far as I'm aware SCOTUS has upheld the EPA's primacy (new window) over greenhouse gases as well.

RockofAges: Better than alcohol. Never woke up wanting to kill myself to end the headache and the vomiting. Makes sex, food, and music twice as good.



This is SO true. I would gladly give up alcohol in favor of pot if I could do so.

bravian: Let me introduce you to the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Tenth Amendment? That old thing?

You're failing to see the bigger picture here.

We have to deal with overpopulation somehow, and executing all pot smokers would be a good start.


/Think of the greater good

inkblot: Evil Twin Skippy: Not so fast there Subby. Federal Law only trumps state law with respect to interstate commerce.

By all rights an measures, products produced and consumed within the same state can't be regulated by the federal government.

They can. The Supreme Court ruled that anything that has an effect on interstate commerce, even if it involves products that are privately manufactured and sold within the same state are privately consumed, can be regulated.

FTFY.

DarnoKonrad: Until very recently, wide majorities supported its illegality. I disagree with that, but that's the way democracy works. People blaming it on "The Feds" are really passing the buck. Like so many screwed up things, the blame lies squarely with voters. Not the faceless monolith called "government."

Yes, very recently indeed. Last week, in fact...



I do not believe we'll see legalization of pot or its removal from the Schedule 1 list before next year's election, but I do expect to see change at the Federal level during the next Presidential term. In the meantime, there is widespread expectation that next year's ballot will have an outright legalization petition on it here in California. I'll vote yes, of course.

Say what you will about the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment and how they're applied currently. Any honest person would acknowledge that it took a lot of interpretive gymnastics and logical contortions to arrive at Wickard vs. Filburn, for example. (If you have time too look that up and are not absolutely baffled by it (for a myriad of reasons), I assert that you're part of the problem.)

Give me the power of unilateral fiat for this example: Think of a cat. I can call it a not-cat, decree that it's not a cat, and forbid anyone calling it a cat at the point of a gun. Practically, you'd be foolish to call it a cat in my fiat land. Hivethink would probably call it a not-cat and even suggest that those who acknowledge its cat-ness are crazy and should be reeducated. However, irrespective of my irrationality, it's cat-ness remains unaffected and it is still a cat.


My point is that if this is what we want (no 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause to mean what we now think it means), we should amend the Constitution to repeal the 10th, get rid of the Commerce Clause, and bestow the authority to regulate everything at any time for any reason on the Federal Government. We have the amendment process for a reason. But we don't seem to believe in that anymore either.

This dissonance serves no one but the sophists and sociopaths. I don't know why we can't just be honest.

slykens1: Evil Twin Skippy: Not so fast there Subby. Federal Law only trumps state law with respect to interstate commerce.

By all rights an measures, products produced and consumed within the same state can't be regulated by the federal government.

[laughing sailor picture.jpg]

Strictly speaking, you're right. Thank FDR for the abomination we've got now.

It won't change, however. Everyone's got a pet law or project that they can only force on everyone else at the federal level through perversion of interstate commerce.

How do they shoehorn Roe V Wade into that?

Xaneidolon: ...time too to look...

FiFM